Argue about wizards, Forgotten Realms, etc. here

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:14 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:2.) So it's okay to stereotype as long as it contains some accuracy in it?

This is a real funny position for you to take at the same time as arguing that you want races which are more distinct in the other thread. But, whatever, that's beside the point. YES IT IS OKAY. Saying otherwise is willful idiocy.

Folks from the British Isles have paler skin, and are more prone to melanoma. Oh noes! Wearing sunscreen must be racist!

People of African descent have a higher incidence of heart disease. But we can't stereotype them. Shit, better not let observable facts play into deciding who goes on statins.

People coming into the country from Mexico often speak Spanish. But it would be stereotyping to guess that the swarthy man who doesn't speak English will understand Spanish. Better run through languages alphabetically: Afrikaans, Aini, Alsatian... we're going to be here all day.

And for bonus fun, oh paragon of the unjudging, feel like explaining this?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I can tell you right now that as for me any edition calling itself AD&D has an uphill battle to prove itself to me because that title signifies to me a history-wank grognard who is more interested in indulging in nostalgia than putting out a decent game.

I know it's a month old, but my give-a-fuck ran out.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:28 pm

fectin wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote:2.) So it's okay to stereotype as long as it contains some accuracy in it?
This is a real funny position for you to take at the same time as arguing that you want races which are more distinct in the other thread. But, whatever, that's beside the point. YES IT IS OKAY. Saying otherwise is willful idiocy.

Folks from the British Isles have paler skin, and are more prone to melanoma. Oh noes! Wearing sunscreen must be racist!

People of African descent have a higher incidence of heart disease. But we can't stereotype them. Shit, better not let observable facts play into deciding who goes on statins.

People coming into the country from Mexico often speak Spanish. But it would be stereotyping to guess that the swarthy man who doesn't speak English will understand Spanish. Better run through languages alphabetically: Afrikaans, Aini, Alsatian... we're going to be here all day.

The difference between what you posted and what tends to happen with racial stereotypes in games is that games tend to give races things like:

+2 to one stat, -2 to another
+2 on some skills
+1 to hit against members of this other race

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:31 pm

RobbyPants wrote:The difference between what you posted and what tends to happen with racial stereotypes in games is that games tend to give races things like:

+2 to one stat, -2 to another

+2 on some skills

+1 to hit against members of this other race

This is not the thread about races in TTRPGs. That is a different thread.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Sep 17, 2011 5:57 am

Watermelon is shit. Fried Chicken is the food of the Gods, and hot sauce makes anything taste better.

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:03 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Watermelon is shit. Fried Chicken is the food of the Gods, and hot sauce makes anything taste better.

I don't think hot sauce on watermelon sounds very appetizing.

Sir Neil · Post by **Sir Neil** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:51 pm

JigokuBosatsu wrote:KILL IT WITH FIRE

I have that toy! It's got a pretty good heft, you could hurt someone with it.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:16 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Watermelon is shit. Fried Chicken is the food of the Gods,.

That pantheon writes itself nicely:

Although, I'm unsure if it should be strictly limited to fried chicken chains or whether to include more 20th century fast food icons in such a work.

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:49 pm

Don't allow such evils such as Ronald and the King in our pantheon!

Not only do they look and act like rapists, they provide blasphemous distractions such as burgers to tempt us from the true path.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:09 pm

Chamomile wrote:There are differences between men and women on biological and cultural levels. Deal with it.

This a weaselly and ambiguous statement trying to masquerade as straight-talking. Yes, there are differences but if you don't say why the biological/cultural difference makes a claim true then you're just talking out of your ass. It's pretty smarmy and inaccurate to try to shoehorn the truth value of one claim (biological differences make men have more testosterone than women therefore it's possible/probably biological differences for other behaviors existence) into whatever other silly conjecture you have and then jump behind the former when the latter is called into play.

Chamomile wrote:I'm sorry. Let me just make sure I understand. You're saying that we should ignore facts because we're afraid that someone's feelings might get hurt? That is the argument you're making?

Yes. It's a pretty dick move to just say unbidden to someone: 'hey, poor person, your friends have a high chance of going to jail ha ha' or something of the like. There's a place for harsh truths when it's used in policy discussions or improving people, but just needling a broad category of people out of the blue for a cliched joke is just you being petulant.

Chamomile wrote:People within a certain demographic are more likely to act in a certain way, and unless we have more precise information to work from, it's generally better to assume the stereotype will hold rather than operating completely blind, particularly since we're not going to have any deeper information on the vast majority of people we meet. If you're overly concerned that someone's feelings might get hurt over that, then you've missed the point of cynicism.

If you want to just be a prejudiced cockhole, just fucking say so. Don't try to hide being your being a bigot and misanthrope by using buzzwords like 'cynicism' and 'more likely'. It doesn't fool anyone because assholes like you have been trying to use this 'harsh but realistic therefore it's okay' canard for hundreds of years.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:27 pm

fectin wrote:This is a real funny position for you to take at the same time as arguing that you want races which are more distinct in the other thread.

That doesn't even make any goddamn sense. For one, that is a book espousing a point of view with real-life stereotypes and ramifications, my thread involved fictional entities. Not to say that some shit can't happen with the other discussion (Watto the Buglike Space Jew, fictional or no, deserves a good rant) but it's a magnitude of difference.

Your criticism wouldn't have any merit even if I was talking about reconstructing the semi-fictional universe of King Arthur and saying that there shouldn't be any Sioux tribesfolk as NPCs because they don't exist on the British Isles. It'd be even more nonsensical if you said that I wasn't being consistent if I said that Ferengi shouldn't exist.

fectin wrote:Folks from the British Isles have paler skin, and are more prone to melanoma. Oh noes! Wearing sunscreen must be racist!

People of African descent have a higher incidence of heart disease. But we can't stereotype them. Shit, better not let observable facts play into deciding who goes on statins.

I've already taken Chamomile to task for this, but 'some categorial differences scientifically/empirically exist, therefore these other categorial differences/judgment must also be true' is not a valid line of argument. Therefore you can stick it up your ass.

fectin wrote:And for bonus fun, oh paragon of the unjudging, feel like explaining this?

Because not all categorical differences (and criticizing/poking fun at them) are created equally because of ugly real life ramifications? Because even if do subscribe to that viewpoint it's the difference between saying that I don't want a chiropractor showing up at my pizza party and I don't want a chiropractor prescribing medicine?

I mean, really, imagine I was going to hire someone to do my BBQ (with pork ribs and sausage) and I was going through chefs. One of the chefs was an orthodox Jew. All three of these statements have meaningful differences:

'I don't want that Orthodox Jew cooking at my BBQ.'
'I don't want that Orthodox Jew cooking a kosher meal at my BBQ.'
'I don't want a chef to cook a kosher BBQ.'

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:21 am

Those are all sensible positions, but they're quite different than the one I took issue with.

Lets run through this again:

- Chamomile says a specific passage is cynical, not misogynist.
- You strawman up a version about blacks.
- Chamomile says that's crazy, because "brain chemistry". kind of a weird place to go, but justifiable: http://www.news.wisc.edu/13719
- you respond with:

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Oh Lord save me from this idiot conversation.

1.) What 'brain chemistry' makes women behave like the stereotype?
2.) So it's okay to stereotype as long as it contains some accuracy in it?
3.) That even if something isn't a stereotype but empirically true (poor people commit more violent crime), it's okay to just bandy hurtful crap about while hiding behind the 'hey, don't blame me, it's the truth!' excuse.

Your first response is stupidly easy: brain chemistry is behind every non-reflexive action you take.
Your third response is exactly to Chamomile's original point: your strawman of a justification is sterling example of cynicism.
Your second response is either foolish or incoherent. Either you are arguing that it is never acceptable to act on any observable pattern when that pattern pertains to a group of people (i.e. a stereotype), or...what? I seriously can't think of anything else those words could mean.

As to your responses:

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
fectin wrote:Folks from the British Isles have paler skin, and are more prone to melanoma. Oh noes! Wearing sunscreen must be racist!

People of African descent have a higher incidence of heart disease. But we can't stereotype them. Shit, better not let observable facts play into deciding who goes on statins.
I've already taken Chamomile to task for this, but 'some categorial differences scientifically/empirically exist, therefore these other categorial differences/judgment must also be true' is not a valid line of argument. Therefore you can stick it up your ass.

Except that your original argument was (apparently) that regardless of the existence of categorical differences, acting on them is not okay. Your response is a strawman, and a poor one.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
fectin wrote:And for bonus fun, oh paragon of the unjudging, feel like explaining this?
Because not all categorical differences (and criticizing/poking fun at them) are created equally because of ugly real life ramifications? Because even if do subscribe to that viewpoint it's the difference between saying that I don't want a chiropractor showing up at my pizza party and I don't want a chiropractor prescribing medicine?

I mean, really, imagine I was going to hire someone to do my BBQ (with pork ribs and sausage) and I was going through chefs. One of the chefs was an orthodox Jew. All three of these statements have meaningful differences:

'I don't want that Orthodox Jew cooking at my BBQ.'
'I don't want that Orthodox Jew cooking a kosher meal at my BBQ.'
'I don't want a chef to cook a kosher BBQ.'

Per your implication above ("So it's okay to stereotype as long as it contains some accuracy in it?"), none of the statements you just made are okay.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:25 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:This a weaselly and ambiguous statement trying to masquerade as straight-talking. Yes, there are differences but if you don't say why the biological/cultural difference makes a claim true then you're just talking out of your ass. It's pretty smarmy and inaccurate to try to shoehorn the truth value of one claim (biological differences make men have more testosterone than women therefore it's possible/probably biological differences for other behaviors existence) into whatever other silly conjecture you have and then jump behind the former when the latter is called into play.

I'm going to walk you through this. One step at a time. Shouldn't be hard, but some people are special.

There are observable differences between male and female biology.

There are observable differences between male and female behavior.

Some people are cynical, and prefer to place the emphasis on mankind as shallow, selfish, and short-sighted. These people also tend to consider themselves to be moral paragons devoid of all fault, which is why you don't have a whole lot of friends, Lago.

When you write a story and in that story imply that "true love" really just boils down to cash, gifts, and ego stroking, you're a cynic. A misanthrope, maybe. You're not a misogynist unless you go out of your way to say that men aren't like that. There are people who make that argument. There are people who say that all men are completely hardworking and honest and logical and feminism is the root of literally every social ill in the modern world today. But having a cynical take on winning the heart of a woman doesn't mean you're automatically making the "feminists are Sith" argument, and you are not automatically a misogynist.

Yes. It's a pretty dick move to just say unbidden to someone: 'hey, poor person, your friends have a high chance of going to jail ha ha' or something of the like. There's a place for harsh truths when it's used in policy discussions or improving people, but just needling a broad category of people out of the blue for a cliched joke is just you being petulant.

Um, Lago, maybe I'm missing some context, but that love potion scene wasn't making a joke. The protagonist, the guy we're supposed to sympathize with it, appeared to be fairly unnerved that apparently the true path to a woman's heart is diamond dust and chocolate. I can't imagine he felt any better once it actually worked, though the author might not have been competent enough to actually follow up on it. Either way, it's not a joke, there's no punchline. The idea is that the protagonist and the audience alike are not supposed to be pleased by the idea, but that it is nonetheless true.

Literature is pretty much exactly the kind of place you'd want to put harsh truths. Unless you support the idea of media as nothing but pure escapism (which you don't, because you're constantly ranting about how D&D is terrible for not holding its heroes to moral standards higher than those adhered to by anyone in the real world and 99% of the source material), bringing up problems with society, even minor ones like how the dating scene is a lot more cynical than the romantics would have you think, is basically exactly the kind of thing you'd do in literature. That's pretty much what art is for. "True art" is practically defined (such that it can be defined at all) as media which means something important.

If you want to just be a prejudiced cockhole, just fucking say so. Don't try to hide being your being a bigot and misanthrope by using buzzwords like 'cynicism' and 'more likely'. It doesn't fool anyone because assholes like you have been trying to use this 'harsh but realistic therefore it's okay' canard for hundreds of years.

If you want to just be a self-righteous cockhole, just fucking say so. Don't try to hide being a hypocrite and a misanthrope by using buzzwords like 'prejudice' and 'bigotry.' It doesn't fool anyone because assholes like you have been trying to use this 'holier than thou' canard for hundreds of years.

Seriously, next time try to put an actual argument in there instead of just blindly accusing your opposition of being a terrible person because shut up.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:36 am

Chamomile wrote:There are observable differences between male and female behavior.

Universal differences? Such that "behavior A is always male, and behavior B is always female"? Because I call bullshit on that one.

Can you give examples of some observable differences between male and female behavior?

Um, Lago, maybe I'm missing some context, but that love potion scene wasn't making a joke. The protagonist, the guy we're supposed to sympathize with it, appeared to be fairly unnerved that apparently the true path to a woman's heart is diamond dust and chocolate. I can't imagine he felt any better once it actually worked, though the author might not have been competent enough to actually follow up on it. Either way, it's not a joke, there's no punchline. The idea is that the protagonist and the audience alike are not supposed to be pleased by the idea, but that it is nonetheless true.

That is why it's a fucked-up scene. It is the author making a statement about women that is in no way true, and basically claiming that it is universally true (at least in his fictional universe).
And regardless of what you said above, I disagree. If he makes a point of being cynical about women and does not make a similar cynical point about men, I believe that does display misogyny.

Literature is pretty much exactly the kind of place you'd want to put harsh truths.

Only if they're objectively true. Putting your personal prejudices in and claiming they are "harsh truths" is nothing but an authorial rant (in this case, about how women are shallow gold-diggers).

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:44 am

PoliteNewb wrote:Can you give examples of some observable differences between male and female behavior?

females more readily form long term relationships with others?

many behaviors related to biology...i guess they wouldnt count?

but im in the middle of something more fun to watch than be in.....

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:57 am

Chamomile wrote:Some people are cynical, and prefer to place the emphasis on mankind as shallow, selfish, and short-sighted. These people also tend to consider themselves to be moral paragons devoid of all fault, which is why you don't have a whole lot of friends, Lago.

I find Lago abrasive but interesting. While you're just a douche.

Stones, glass houses, etc.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:48 am

PoliteNewb wrote:Universal differences? Such that "behavior A is always male, and behavior B is always female"? Because I call bullshit on that one.

Universal? No. There are no universal differences between children and adults either. There are demonstrably some children who are better at managing their lives than their parents are. You could not use this fact to convincingly argue that the voting, driving, and drinking ages should be lowered to twelve. I wouldn't be on board with drafting twelve-year olds even if there weren't issues with carrying capacity, either.

And since I'm very nearly positive it'll come up, no, women are not like children and should not be treated like children. There is no evidence that women are less capable of maintaining a society the way children are. There's just not a whole lot of cases where differences in behavior are obvious enough for me to make my point.

Can you give examples of some observable differences between male and female behavior?

The cheap shot is that women have PMS and men don't. Women are less likely to escalate a confrontation to physical violence. Women are attracted to a very different set of qualities than men (the details are up for grabs, but it's generally agreed upon that women like a lot more muscle on men than men like on women). Women go to the bathroom in hordes ten thousand strong, clad in sable armor and bristling with swords and spears. This is not counting the things that are less trivial but still quite possibly true according to actual scientific studies.

That is why it's a fucked-up scene. It is the author making a statement about women that is in no way true, and basically claiming that it is universally true (at least in his fictional universe).

You are objectively wrong.

And regardless of what you said above, I disagree. If he makes a point of being cynical about women and does not make a similar cynical point about men, I believe that does display misogyny.

Then you're looking for a fight to pick. If you were Lago, I'd be fairly certain it's because you're just looking for another reason to whine about how hard it is being morally superior to everyone else, but you're not, so I have no idea what's going on with you. Probably something more flattering than that. Regardless, if I make a point that the Jews in Israel are abusing their status as holocaust victims to get away with some serious oppression of their own concerning the Palestinians, I am not a racist just because I don't mention that Arabs have the nasty habit of blowing up in front of people they don't like. This is particularly true if I'm writing a fiction piece. I'm not obligated to shoehorn in something about suicide bombers just because I had a scene taking Israel to task over the Gaza strip.

Only if they're objectively true. Putting your personal prejudices in and claiming they are "harsh truths" is nothing but an authorial rant (in this case, about how women are shallow gold-diggers).

See link above. They are objectively true. Probably not universally, but universally enough that you can expect it to work reliably, and certainly universally enough that society would benefit from some biting commentary on the subject.

I've known some good women, and I'm still in touch with a few. They're not generally shallow or selfish or petty. A lot of them have had boyfriends or are married, and the guys they chose are generally pretty good guys. Some of these women I know only because they dated/married someone I know, actually. But of the ones I knew well enough to know what they liked in men, every single one of them would prefer a rich guy to a poor one, by a pretty wide margin. That's not solid evidence, of course, but the study above is solid as far as I can tell. There've been a few others in the same vein, too.

It's not like the same thing isn't true of men. I don't have any studies to back this one up, but I think it's fairly universally accepted that the vast majority of men are willing to cut attractive women more slack in the personality department than plain ones, even if they're generally decent men. Deeper guys value personality and such more than looks, but looks still play into it, and I can't think of anyone who'd argue against that. But say the exact same thing about women cutting powerful men more slack for their failings in terms of personality, and suddenly there are accusations of bigotry flying through the air.

EDIT:

I find Lago abrasive but interesting. While you're just a douche.

Stones, glass houses, etc.

I don't actually know you well enough to care about your opinion of me.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:51 am

PoliteNewb wrote:It is the author making a statement about women that is in no way true, and basically claiming that it is universally true (at least in his fictional universe).

This is a leap. '"The love potion is a reference to a stereotype, the love potion works, ergo he's implying the stereotype is universally true." There may or may not be a misogynistic message here, but it has nothing to do with the fact that you think he tried to make a universally true claim about women, because that's just not something that follows.

PoliteNewb wrote:And regardless of what you said above, I disagree. If he makes a point of being cynical about women and does not make a similar cynical point about men, I believe that does display misogyny.

And this is sketchy too. You see one-sided cynicism on a 'two-sided' topic, and you assume he's taking the other side. That's shitty reasoning. Being cynical about X is not an implicit endorsement of whatever you assume to be on the other side of X. That's suspiciously close to "you're either with me or you're against me," which is not how things really work.

I haven't actually read the Dresden Files (and have no intention to), but just from the things linked here it looks like a lot of author self-insert and wish fulfillment, with dashes of misogyny here and there. I'd have to read more to be sure, but I don't care enough.

Chamomile wrote:[link]

That really needs a comparison study against men before it can be a gender-relevant truth. If it turns out expensive cars make women more likely to be rated higher in some set of random rankings by men, as it almost certainly would, then it's just purely human nature.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:18 pm

The researchers say the men tested in the same way are not impressed by whatever car a woman drives because they judge purely on her face and figure.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:37 pm

From my (limited) experience, there does seem to be correlation between being attractive to women and having a surplus of resources.

I haven't really looked into what makes someone attractive to men because I don't go out of my way to attract them (other than gay swedes find me attractive for some reason.)

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:43 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I haven't really looked into what makes someone attractive to men because I don't go out of my way to attract them (other than gay swedes find me attractive for some reason.)

You go out of your way to attract gay Swedes?

Are you bisexual, or just cruel?

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:58 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I haven't really looked into what makes someone attractive to men because I don't go out of my way to attract them (other than gay swedes find me attractive for some reason.)

PROTIP: Eat your meatballs less erotically.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 5:15 pm

Damn what happened to this thread... talk about derailed...

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:17 pm

Chamomile wrote:The researchers say the men tested in the same way are not impressed by whatever car a woman drives because they judge purely on her face and figure.

Oh. Nevermind then. Carry on. I should have read that more carefully.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:22 pm

Juton wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote:And if you wanted a love potion for blacks you'd dump in hot sauce, watermelon rinds, and fried chicken.
I never got this line of reasoning. Fried chicken and watermelon is delicious, any white person who can't admit this is a liar. Why do people make fun of black people for loving delicious food?

Because it's fun?

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:From my (limited) experience, there does seem to be correlation between being attractive to women and having a surplus of resources.

I haven't really looked into what makes someone attractive to men because I don't go out of my way to attract them (other than gay swedes find me attractive for some reason.)

Actually that's biology. Women find men who are obviously good at obtaining resources more attractive, and that actually changed with society. It used to be that large men were the ideal mates, because they could obviously more easily provide food for mate and children. Now it's men with money. I imagine that holds true with lesbians too, just replace men with women, of course. Men are primarily attracted to visual signs of fecundity and ability to birth and raise children, but this later part of course tends to go through the wringer with gay men, and of course there are always individual preferences.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:42 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:Actually that's biology.

How much of it is biology and how much of it is social influences is up for grabs. There is bare minimum one key biological difference, though, and that is that women get pregnant and men don't. And that's a really big 'f u' from mother nature, because (primitively speaking) women got knocked up and spent half of every year out of commission while men had that time to maintain and build skillsets. That naturally leads to the sexes adopting certain social roles in society, and once those social roles are adopted it's hard to break out of them, even when they stop being socially relevant.

You really don't need to appeal to biology to explain this sort of behavior. It can arise naturally and propagate itself alongside (and because of) the biological differences without being biologically encoded into people itself.