Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?

[Ghostmaker]

So Box pulled a HD because the forum is not agreeing enough with his counterpoints on a topic.

Query: HD?

[Ratman_tf]

So Box pulled a HD because the forum is not agreeing enough with his counterpoints on a topic.

Query: HD?

Probably HappyDaze.

[BoxCrayonTales]

I have no idea what anybody is saying anymore.


This is not a hill I'm willing to die on.

[tenbones]

I have no idea what anybody is saying anymore.


This is not a hill I'm willing to die on.

What we're saying is:


SJW's project their own inherent racism and bigotry on *everyone* else. They've adopted alternative definitions for words that do not comport with their actual meanings - and worse, they've conflated words and thoughts to mean actions and have lost the capacity to differentiate between the two. This may be (likely) an emergent quality of the ideology that has been taught to them. This ideology further insulates itself by leveraging the thought-mechanisms of cult-behavior by demonizing anything that does not comport with their doctrine.


The net-effect is a deracination of the individual from the moorings of reality. This leads to the justifications for their racism and bigotry and blinds them from their own hypocrisy because of their adoption of these conflicting definitions which supports the very racism SJW's pretend they're fighting against.


This is a the pathological adherence to Post-Modernism where in comparing two opposite things the individual loses the ability to make a discernment of quality between them. i.e. everything becomes "equal" in value. This is an illusion of epic proportions.


You may not wish to figuratively die on this hill... but it might be too late, figuratively, if you can't understand what we're saying.

[Zirunel]

What we're saying is:


SJW's project their own inherent racism and bigotry on *everyone* else. They've adopted alternative definitions for words that do not comport with their actual meanings - and worse, they've conflated words and thoughts to mean actions and have lost the capacity to differentiate between the two. This may be (likely) an emergent quality of the ideology that has been taught to them. This ideology further insulates itself by leveraging the thought-mechanisms of cult-behavior by demonizing anything that does not comport with their doctrine.


The net-effect is a deracination of the individual from the moorings of reality. This leads to the justifications for their racism and bigotry and blinds them from their own hypocrisy because of their adoption of these conflicting definitions which supports the very racism SJW's pretend they're fighting against.


This is a the pathological adherence to Post-Modernism where in comparing two opposite things the individual loses the ability to make a discernment of quality between them. i.e. everything becomes "equal" in value. This is an illusion of epic proportions.


You may not wish to figuratively die on this hill... but it might be too late, figuratively, if you can't understand what we're saying.

I'm not certain that that is what BCT doesn't understand. I'm not even certain he disagrees with that, as far as it goes. For example, if we rewind to the post that began this thread, I suspect he would agree that "Alien as angry black woman" is preposterous. If I read him right, his argument with you would be more along the lines of "yes, but..."


However, I can't really speak for him,  that's just my read, and maybe I'm wrong.

[Ghostmaker]

I admit I'm more than a little offended at the whole 'RPGs have no more depth than a violent video game'. That's kind of a slap to every module writer who's tried to write an adventure that was more than just 'go to point A and kill stuff', from our gracious host to ol' Gygax and Arneson.


They may not always succeed, but is that a reflection on -them-, or the GM?


BCT is also unconsciously (and hilariously) parroting the same arguments I've seen in Dragon Magazine letters from the 80's. Some things never change.

[tenbones]

I'm not certain that that is what BCT doesn't understand. I'm not even certain he disagrees with that, as far as it goes. For example, if we rewind to the post that began this thread, I suspect he would agree that "Alien as angry black woman" is preposterous. If I read him right, his argument with you would be more along the lines of "yes, but..."


However, I can't really speak for him,  that's just my read, and maybe I'm wrong.

Possibly. But that's what I'm trying to interrogate...


the "yes, but". On it's face - it's fine. I don't have any problem with people offering up counterfacts. That's good for healthy discussion. But the reflexive use of "Yes, but" without any contextual discernment of what gets offered up *after* the "Yes, but" is what is needed.


If the premise of the "Yes, but" ignores any of the aforementioned claims such as "Pretending to know what the intent of of what's in someone's mind at the time of an an action is very difficult to ascertain"... You know... this is the difference between Manslaughter and Murder 1. Intent is *extremely* hard to prove for a reason.


Saying "Yes, but" - then flying off the handle with telepathic claims of intent, should be taken with extreme skepticism. the degree to which people engage in this kind of rhetoric as a norm means the problem is likely with the person making the rhetorical argument.

[HappyDaze]

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.

You're giving your secrets away again.

[HappyDaze]

This ideology further insulates itself by leveraging the thought-mechanisms of cult-behavior by demonizing anything that does not comport with their doctrine.

That trait is hardly a unique identifier for SJWs...unless you're suggesting that many prominent posters on this site are SJWs.

[VisionStorm]

I'm not certain that that is what BCT doesn't understand. I'm not even certain he disagrees with that, as far as it goes. For example, if we rewind to the post that began this thread, I suspect he would agree that "Alien as angry black woman" is preposterous. If I read him right, his argument with you would be more along the lines of "yes, but..."


However, I can't really speak for him,  that's just my read, and maybe I'm wrong.

Possibly. But that's what I'm trying to interrogate...


the "yes, but". On it's face - it's fine. I don't have any problem with people offering up counterfacts. That's good for healthy discussion. But the reflexive use of "Yes, but" without any contextual discernment of what gets offered up *after* the "Yes, but" is what is needed.


If the premise of the "Yes, but" ignores any of the aforementioned claims such as "Pretending to know what the intent of of what's in someone's mind at the time of an an action is very difficult to ascertain"... You know... this is the difference between Manslaughter and Murder 1. Intent is *extremely* hard to prove for a reason.


Saying "Yes, but" - then flying off the handle with telepathic claims of intent, should be taken with extreme skepticism. the degree to which people engage in this kind of rhetoric as a norm means the problem is likely with the person making the rhetorical argument.

I have been down this road before and "Yes, but... (ignores any refutations and just reiterates his/her/their? point with ever increasing histrionic hyperbole mixed with oddly misanthropic quips and lamentations about the human species)" is all that arguing with crayon eater ever gives you. He/she/it(?) never addresses your point. He(etc.) almost never provides any example of WTF exactly he's talking about, and in the odd event that they(?) do, it's always wrong and a misrepresentation of the actual work it(?) is using as an example. Everything is "obviously" racist, sexist, whatever and you just have to accept it as self-evident fact.

Arguments with crayon always end in frustration—both, your own and their's, which he/she/it(?) will express profusely in a whiny manner. I've argued this exact same topic with him(?) extensively months ago, and it just went on in circles (as arguments with them always do), and it never went anywhere, with crayon never counter arguing my refutations and just circling back to his original point eventually, just slightly reworded or from a different angle—like he/she/it(?) is desperately trying to convince me of his foregone conclusion rather than actually addressing my point.

Like bringing it up again, but comparing orcs to vikings instead of non-white ethnic groups this time around is going to convince me that describing a group as "bloodthirsty raiding savages" is always racist propaganda to justify "blah, blah, blah" rather than accurate descriptions of both, vikings and orcs. Cuz obviously I'm a white supremacist or something, and I would relate more to a white group of bloodthirsty raiding savages, so using them as an example is just what I would find relatable enough to realize just how racist it is to refer to a group of bloodthirsty raiding savages as bloodthirsty raiding savages. Except that vikings ARE bloodthirsty raiding savages, and the fact that some groups have historically used words like "bloodthirsty raiding savages" as part of their racist propaganda to justify blah, blah, blah does not change the fact that the words "bloodthirsty raiding savages" can ALSO be accurate descriptors for some groups. And if you want to describe something you HAVE to use accurate terminology and the fact that racist groups may have also used similar words in their propaganda DOES NOT mean that those words are compromised and racist forever and you cannot use them again.

But crayon's histrionic, myopic ass can't tell the difference so he/she/it just chooses to interpret EVERYTHING as "similar to racist propaganda, therefore 'obviously' equal to racist propaganda". So the argument circles back, ENDLESSLY, cuz he ain't arguing points or listening to reason. He just has his forgone points stuck in his head, which he wrongheadedly takes as "obvious" despite just being figments in his head. So won't discuss anything else. And it goes on and on, FOREVER.

[Ratman_tf]

Like bringing it up again, but comparing orcs to vikings instead of non-white ethnic groups this time around is going to convince me that describing a group as "bloodthirsty raiding savages" is always racist propaganda to justify "blah, blah, blah" rather than accurate descriptions of both, vikings and orcs. Cuz obviously I'm a white supremacist or something, and I would relate more to a white group of bloodthirsty raiding savages, so using them as an example is just what I would find relatable enough to realize just how racist it is to refer to a group of bloodthirsty raiding savages as bloodthirsty raiding savages. Except that vikings ARE bloodthirsty raiding savages, and the fact that some groups have historically used words like "bloodthirsty raiding savages" as part of their racist propaganda to justify blah, blah, blah does not change the fact that the words "bloodthirsty raiding savages" can ALSO be accurate descriptors for some groups. And if you want to describe something you HAVE to use accurate terminology and the fact that racist groups may have also used similar words in their propaganda DOES NOT mean that those words are compromised and racist forever and you cannot use them again.

But crayon's histrionic, myopic ass can't tell the difference so he/she/it just chooses to interpret EVERYTHING as "similar to racist propaganda, therefore 'obviously' equal to racist propaganda". So the argument circles back, ENDLESSLY, cuz he ain't arguing points or listening to reason. He just has his forgone points stuck in his head, which he wrongheadedly takes as "obvious" despite just being figments in his head. So won't discuss anything else. And it goes on and on, FOREVER.

Yeah. I think that's an accurate description of how these discussions go round. It's frustrating because we seem to hover on the edge of some kind of resolution, but never actually get there.

[tenbones]

This ideology further insulates itself by leveraging the thought-mechanisms of cult-behavior by demonizing anything that does not comport with their doctrine.

That trait is hardly a unique identifier for SJWs...unless you're suggesting that many prominent posters on this site are SJWs.

Simple litmus test: Is that really what I mean? Did you just isolate some smaller item for the purposes of conflating to encompass some other gross generalization? It would almost seem as if someone literally said this in the very same post you excised it from...

[Spinachcat]

So...orcs ARE black people and now that orcs don't get -2 INT, everything's cool?

But since it's been determined by the exalted followers of the "Party of Science" that orcs are black people, orcs forever shall be blacks since changing orcs never erases the horrible original Gygaxian sin, thus the "problem" shall haunt fantasy games forevermore...
...unless you boot these clowns from your table (preferably through a window).

In any other year, I might find it interesting that ONLY those obsessed with race, skin color and imaginary omniprescent racism would be the ones so adamant that orcs are black people. But in 2020, I am truly done giving a shit trying to understand or debate the idiocy they crap out of their mouths.

[BoxCrayonTales]

I don't have a dog in this fight. You don't need to obsess over me.

What do you want me to say? "Anyone who thinks there are any similarities whatsoever between the depictions of humanoids in D&D and any real life racist propaganda is a racist."

Okay.

Anybody who thinks any depiction of goblins shares any traits with antisemitic caricatures (e.g. money grubbing, power hungry, small, miserly w/ dark ugly features, large ears and huge nose, corrosive and subversive) is a racist.

Anybody who thinks any depiction of orcs shares any traits with any propaganda humans throw at each other since time immemorial (e.g. violent thugs, subhuman, stupid, rapists, cannibals, barbarians, raiders, savages, explosive breeders, deserve extermination, target practice) is a racist.

Damn any man who sympathizes with humanoids. Kill and scalp all, big and little, nits make lice.

Are we good now? The mental effort to stay invested in this tangent has been very exhausting and stressful for me. I got diarrhea.

[Abraxus]

So anything and everything is racist no matter what anyone says. Good to know. I don't agree with that and I won't change Orcs, Goblins, or other evil Humanoids to fit some offended player sense of faux outrage and racism.


I am running Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign and in one of the books their are Orcs guarding the ruins of a haunted castle. Which imo does not really mesh well with the encounters in the castle. It's a haunted castle populated by undead under guard by a bunch of Orcs. Essentially the Orcs in the area overran the castle and during the battle a curse fell upon it due to all the deaths and agony etc.. All the Orc invaders except one die and the one that does escape has his skin permanently turned white from the encounter.


The premise for the Orcs is that they are the descendants of the surviving Orc keeping an eye on the castle except it also contradicts that the Orcs want nothing to do with the castle. Imo it felt like the writer of the part of the Adventure Path wanted to throw Orcs at the players when imo it should have been Undead. I am planning to have the players just either bypass the Orcs or come to some kind of diplomatic agreement. The Orcs are their to make sure to keep Orcs and anything evil from escaping the castle. No reason they would have to attack the players. Just because they are Evil does mean they have to be stupid.


Too bad about BOX being an SJW ("Guys I'm not really an SJW" ). He had some interesting posts yet don't bullshit the forum about being social progressive then play the victim.