Racism, sexism & bigotry

[Malekith]

 

 

And, back to the topic, this kind of summarizes my stance on this matter. We can have more than enough conflict without alienating any part of the audience. You can have a good story without bigotry, racism or sexism. There is nothing to be lost by not including these themes in the game. So, if it costs us nothing, why not make it more enjoyable to people who get enough crap in real life to be extremely annoyed if they see the same **** in their entertainment, too?

 

What about drug usage? Won't someone who has faced that problem in real life find it disturbing? How about rape? Slavery? Hunger?Child killing? If someone is close to child killing incidents in US may have negative emotions about this.

 

I disagree partly with your stance because if a creator sit and think what someone out there can find disturbing,, he will run out of options very fast. Mature themes based on real life from their nature can rub some people the wrong way. For me the creators should be free to put everything they want in their work. If their creative vision doesn't include sexism for example because in their setting it doesn't make sense to have it, then good. The highlighed part is the key. If their artistic vision is of a bleak world where nothing good happens and racism,sexism and whateverism are the norms, they should go for it.

 

There seems to be a misunderstanding. I don't endorse a "politically correct" (for a lack of better term) stance purely on ethical grounds. I don't really care if a statistically irrelevant (on general principle, <5%) minority of the potential buyers finds the game offensive - so I think hunger or drug use are almost certainly fine, slavery and child killing are probably okay. On the other hand, rape and racial issues should only be used with a good reason, because I'd prefer if there was no backlash of any kind, which could adversely affect sales. P:E is already a niche product. (Although, one could argue that this niche has not much overlap with those who would get offended by these themes, so they could be included anyway; a sentiment I can get behind, but keep in mind that those customers will also not boycott the product if it lacks the aforementioned themes - so why put them in?)

 

I couldn't agree more. If the developers feel that their artistic vision would be compromised by a lack of racism, bigotry and rape, they should include these themes. But there can be a million (logical!) ways to have a setting without these, and grimdark is already getting tired.

 

That's why i used the words "partly disagree". I agree with what you are saying that some issues should only be used with a good reason and not just because. But to tell the truth i have yet to see evidence that "offending content" for a lack of better phrase and forum backlash for that content affects sales negatively. Gamers who are interested in those issues are an extreme minority.  And it works both ways. Many people were outraged that DA:O included gay romances, and a lot of buzz was created, but their sales were unhurt. The same with Witcher and sexism critisism.And DA2 had more serious problems. Only EA's CEO blames the homophobes for low sales.  If someone knows one game that political issues caused sales drop feel free to correct me.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I think I tackled this the wrong way, now that I have the possibility to debate. The political correctness actually prevents problems to be debated correctly. Because people are so afraid to speak up their minds and fears, they have to resort to extremism to find someone willing to listen to them. And extremist people are quick to use them for their own ends. How many times I've seen fed up people called fascists when they were just afraid?

It's very interesting. Sadly, that's a subject I can't really talk about in English, since it would require a better vocabulary and elocution.

 

 

Feel free to use your native language. The worst that could happen is that we won't understand a word out of it, which will have the same effect as if you hadn't said anything.

[Merlkir]

Well, we know how the Czech Republic went about this problem.

 

 

 

We do? 

 

 

Yup, the Roma issue in Europe is a textbook example of structural, institutionalized racism. It goes deep and has roots that are centuries old. It will take a long time and a lot of determined effort to change that. It's not that long ago that Roma were hanged if caught inside city limits in many European cities.

 

I've no doubt many Roma are themselves pretty cynical about any such attempts, and act accordingly. That won't change quickly either. In the meantime, yeah, it is going to be a problem.

 

But in my opinion it's unreasonable to ask the Roma to behave like good little law-abiding citizens as long as these structures are in place. Dismantling them will take effort from all sides, but the ones with more power -- i.e., the majority -- bear commensurately more responsibility.

 

 

You know, this is exactly the type of bull that doesn't help anything. The other side of the problem, really. You like the term "institutionalized racism", let me tell you - the racism deeply embedded in the institutions here is of the reverse kind. Talking about hanging gypsies being not that long ago, wow, that sounds pretty horrible. (when was it again? early 18th century? That's almost yesterday.) The reality is - gypsies get preferential treatment from the government, in spades. Why? Because the people in power are pooping their pants about losing face with their pals from the EU and of course from the US. 

 

The gypsies are not cynical about it. They're used to milking the racist card, so they do it, because it works. Most of them couldn't care less about the overall situation and the need for integration.

 

You also seem to love this idea of minority underdogs toughing it out, biting their teeth and getting on with their difficult lives filled with white racism.

There are no opressive structures to be dismantled, not in the way you imagine. I actually agree that taking away all the pro-gypsy racist institutions would eventually help the situation. 

It's tough being poor and having no work. What's even worse is being poor and having no work, because you're getting just enough to live almost-comfortably from the people who hate you.

 

It's like aid for Africa in a way, the manner in which we're trying to help people is actually damaging them far worse.

[TrashMan]

 

I will feel bad only if *I* feel there is reason for me to feel bad.

Then you're a highly unusual person. Most humans don't have that kind of control over their emotions.

 

Really? I find it rather simple really.

 

For an example, if I told you I was offended if you use the word "cabbage" would you apologize and stop using the word or would you go "that's nothing to be offended about" and continue using it?

 

There has to be some critera for when something is offensive and when it isn't. You can't completely rely on the offended person to define it.

 

 

 

 

Have you considered asking a few blondes how they feel around a group of guys telling each other blonde jokes?

 

Given that I'm blonde too I'd say that don't care at all.

I'm also Christian and I'm not bothered by jokes about religion, God or christians. Nor do generally jokes about my nation bother me.

Some won't sit well with me, but then again, they don't have to. I'm not the only audience, so my approval is not required.

 

 

 

 

I disagree. If you know something is likely to offend and you do it regardless, then that's still a **** move -- even if your primary purpose wasn't to cause offense. Unless, of course, your reasons for making that move are more important than the offense being caused. In my opinion, getting a laugh isn't good enough reason to cause offense.

 

How about truth?

If someone askes you "what is your oppinion on X?" how do you answer is you know your truthfull answer WILL rub someone the wrong way?

Will you lie to avoid offending someone? Even if they ask for the truth?

Will you let the truth be the victim?

 

 

A joke is NOT telling them they are of lower status.

Perceptions.

I disagree. The effect of microaggressions -- such as offensive jokes told "in good fun" has been studied a quite a bit. They actually do more psychological damage over time than overt aggressions. The reason is that it's socially costly to react to them. Just swallowing those little insults day after day wears down your self-esteem. Then you build defenses, such as taking it out on some other group. That's depressing and totally unnecessary.

 

Well, I denounce the entire notion of it.

 

 

  

 

 

Wel-l-l... you're not so much attempting to shift the social climate as maintain it. There's been a huge shift already. A few years ago, this kind of discussion we're having would've been inconceivable in gamer/geek/atheist/F/OSS circles; all of these groups are now grappling big-time with these issues. I don't see any sign of this shift slowing down or reversing.

 

No, I want a social climate of reason. To you it might seem like it's the same thing as mantaining, but as I said before - perceptions.

 

 

 

 

 

Heh, well, I wasn't exactly expecting you to go "Wow, PJ -- you know, I think you're right. I see the evil of my ways now and will start doing my best to feel everyone welcome in the social space I inhabit, instead of maintaining hostile environments like I've been doing until now."

 

Hostile enviroment? Hardly.

Quite the contrary, I am constantly baffled at the extreeme levels of intolerance the so-called champions of tolerance actually tend to display.

 

 

******

 

 

Sometimes, racism is understandable and that's what I want to see in a Obs game. Where something that is supposed to be fundamentally wrong is actually justified.

 

 

Methinks oyu are looking for another word.

 

Profiling is understandable. Mistrust based on negative experience is understandable. Those are survival machanisms that served humanity well.

 

 

Racism is harder to swallow, but I guess even that can be justifiable in extreeme circumstances, altough I can't think of one.

Edited May 21, 2013 by TrashMan

[Drowsy Emperor]

Yup, the Roma issue in Europe is a textbook example of structural, institutionalized racism. It goes deep and has roots that are centuries old. It will take a long time and a lot of determined effort to change that. It's not that long ago that Roma were hanged if caught inside city limits in many European cities.

 

I've no doubt many Roma are themselves pretty cynical about any such attempts, and act accordingly. That won't change quickly either. In the meantime, yeah, it is going to be a problem.

 

But in my opinion it's unreasonable to ask the Roma to behave like good little law-abiding citizens as long as these structures are in place. Dismantling them will take effort from all sides, but the ones with more power -- i.e., the majority -- bear commensurately more responsibility.

 

Rubbish, where are you from again? Please do not be someone from the US telling us what the situation is like in Europe.

 

I actually have gypsies living in my neighborhood, had gypsies in my class in elementary school, regularly communicate with them on farmers markets and everything said about their lack of willingness to integrate is true for the overwhelming majority.

[Fearabbit]

I think "political racism" (or whatever you want to call it) like the one that persists in Europe about gypsies would be excellent in P:E. Or to pick a different example, the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Where everyone agrees that the situation is kind of screwed up and nobody knows what to do about it. In the end, you have to choose a side and you don't really feel good about it. You may even be afraid of becoming a bigot yourself.

That would be really interesting for the game.

 

I mean, we are still talking about the game, right?

 

I think it would be very interesting if the game could spark a discussion such as this one. "How could you help the Aumaua?! Didn't you see what they did in that village? They're total ****!" - "Yeah, but the Orlans and the Elves forced them into this way of life..."

I would really like to see that. But having this discussion here and now, completely out of context, that doesn't seem to make any sense.

 

(Edit: Also why is everyone telling PrimeJunta that his opinion about gypsies is rubbish when all you do afterwards is to rephrase what he said? Stop that, it's very confusing.)

Edited May 21, 2013 by Fearabbit

[Drowsy Emperor]

Or we could just enjoy a fantasy world without enforcing tasteless real world references of one sort or another.

 

Like we had (more or less) in Planescape Torment or Baldur's Gate 2.

 

You know, a genuine adventure? Not a political statement like the Bioware pro-gay crusade?

Edited May 21, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Nonek]

I thought the differing philosophies, their factions and the disparate echelons of class and abode in Torment were brilliant representations of what i'm looking for in Eternity. Much like in New Vegas, though not upon a war torn borderland where naturally the general opinion of the opposing side is excessively negative. Either of those approaches is fine, but hopefully dealt with in more detail.

 

Baldurs Gate 2 not so much, it was a little too undefined and consequenceless, for me at least.

 

Totally agree that the preaching and blatant moralising of Biowares approach is distasteful, but I think nobody at Obsidian would try to make such an un-subtle message, in most of their games they seem to pose the questions rather than enforce their own answers.

[PrimeJunta]

Rubbish, where are you from again? Please do not be someone from the US telling us what the situation is like in Europe.

Helsinki, Finland.

 

I actually have gypsies living in my neighborhood, had gypsies in my class in elementary school, regularly communicate with them on farmers markets and everything said about their lack of willingness to integrate is true for the overwhelming majority.

If that's true...

 

(1) How do you think it got that way?

(2) What kind of structures do you think might maintain those attitudes?

(3) What, if anything, do you think could or should be done about it?

[PrimeJunta]

Really? I find it rather simple really.

 

For an example, if I told you I was offended if you use the word "cabbage" would you apologize and stop using the word or would you go "that's nothing to be offended about" and continue using it?

Out of courtesy for you, I would probably do my best to stop using it around you. If you managed to explain to me why the word "cabbage" is offensive to your group of people, I might even attempt to stop using the word altogether.

 

There has to be some critera for when something is offensive and when it isn't. You can't completely rely on the offended person to define it.

Actually, I can and I do. If someone states that something I said offended them, I take them at their word (assuming they're not saying it as a simple rhetorical trick, that is). If several people independently state similar things for similar reasons, then I'll attempt to change my behavior. When I was growing up, for example, the word "neekeri" (Finnish for "Negro") was not considered offensive, and it was a regular part of my vocabulary. Over time, it took on negative connotations of words in other languages and people started using it with offensive intent. So I dropped it.

 

 

Have you considered asking a few blondes how they feel around a group of guys telling each other blonde jokes?

 

Given that I'm blonde too I'd say that don't care at all.

 

You're a woman? I wasn't aware of that.

 

I'm also Christian and I'm not bothered by jokes about religion, God or christians. Nor do generally jokes about my nation bother me.

Some won't sit well with me, but then again, they don't have to. I'm not the only audience, so my approval is not required.

 

Good on ya. Do you think that gives you license to offend others who may be more sensitive about these topics?

 

 

ow about truth?

If someone askes you "what is your oppinion on X?" how do you answer is you know your truthfull answer WILL rub someone the wrong way?

Will you lie to avoid offending someone? Even if they ask for the truth?

Will you let the truth be the victim?

I'll quote the Buddha at you:

 

"If something is untrue and pleasing to hear, the Tathagata does not say it.

"If something is untrue and displeasing to hear, the Tathagata does not say it.

"If something is true and pleasing to hear, the Tathagata knows the right time to say it.

"If something is true and displeasing to hear, the Tathagata knows the right time to say it."

 

Not bad advice IMO. I'm actually really bad at knowing the right time to say it, but I'm practicing.

  

Well, I denounce the entire notion of it.

Denounce away. That doesn't make them less real.

 

No, I want a social climate of reason. To you it might seem like it's the same thing as mantaining, but as I said before - perceptions.

Good, there's a goal we can share, then. A social climate or reason would be very welcome!

 

Hostile enviroment? Hardly.

Quite the contrary, I am constantly baffled at the extreeme levels of intolerance the so-called champions of tolerance actually tend to display.

That's the paradox of tolerance -- the only thing it can't tolerate is intolerance. This tends not to go down well among champions of intolerance.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Rubbish, where are you from again? Please do not be someone from the US telling us what the situation is like in Europe.

Helsinki, Finland.

 

I actually have gypsies living in my neighborhood, had gypsies in my class in elementary school, regularly communicate with them on farmers markets and everything said about their lack of willingness to integrate is true for the overwhelming majority.

If that's true...

 

(1) How do you think it got that way?

(2) What kind of structures do you think might maintain those attitudes?

(3) What, if anything, do you think could or should be done about it?

 

 

How many gypsies are there in Finland?

 

 

1. It got that way because the gypsies never cared to fight for a legitimate position in society (which is the only way a minority gets such a position).

2. Internal societal structure of the gypsies themselves. Its not about a single leader or an ideology, its rock hard habits without the willingness to change. 

3. Everything everyone else said was true, there were honest efforts to integrate gypsies. They were failures. There were effectively extermination campaigns (nazi camps, forced sterilizations). They failed too. The gypsy mentality is total, in the sense that it regulates the entire life of the individual and is extremely resistant to change.

 

I have no idea what is to be done. The solution for that question has eluded an entire generation of leaders in all European societies.

[Merlkir]

My slightly jaded take on it (in the CZR):

 

1) Confused and well meant (yet destructive) approach of a liberal government after the velvet revolution. The previous socialist regime wasn't free, but it forced everyone to work and not working was illegal. This helped integration somewhat. (ie. everyone was in the same ****) 

 

2) The reality that gypsies can (and do) live off of welfare and criminal activity. Not all of them, of course, but a large portion of them does. They don't have a reason to change their lives. Why send kids to school? It's much more useful if they become pickpockets. (can't be charged, cops just let them go) This lifestyle and our approach of letting it happen grows and grows in rumors and only reinforces hatred from the white majority. There are many myths about gypsies which are absolute nonsense. But seeing what actually does happen gives you ground to believe the ridiculous too. And it just keeps on going. Gypsies don't want to go to work, because people won't hire them and they manage quite fine without it. People don't want to hire them. Because if they actually employ people in their business, they have likely been forced by the employment office to take on a few gypsies before. And very likely it didn't work out. (supply stealing, going to work every other day or not at all etc.) 

 

3) If I knew, I'd be rich and happy. I think a complete revamp of the "gypsy issue" funding is quite necessary. These funds are very often received by companies who run away with the money after pretending to do something (useless Gypsy Culture courses, counseling etc.), while the actual gypsies rarely see a dime of it. As with any other cases of bigotry, I think it's extremely important to encourage positive examples. Push for mandatory education (just like everyone else), cut the fake wellfare recipients (they're 30 and their backs supposedly hurt so much they'll never work in their life). And most importantly, we need to see racism where it actually appears, and stop fearing we'll be accused of racism if we enforce laws the same way for everyone.

 

edit: it's true the gypsy culture is very much based on family (rather extended family) and customs. Some of the families are living all across Europe and their top people are often involved in organized crime. It's hard to integrate into society you (supposedly) live in, if you daily reality is a huge family with strict rules against working for a living.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Merlkir

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Hostile enviroment? Hardly.

Quite the contrary, I am constantly baffled at the extreeme levels of intolerance the so-called champions of tolerance actually tend to display.

That's the paradox of tolerance -- the only thing it can't tolerate is intolerance. This tends not to go down well among champions of intolerance.

 

I think that's a horrible misconception. But, then again, it's still slightly less absurd than people screaming about how they are terribly oppressed when someone asks them not to behave like an offensive f***wad.

Edited May 21, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Auxilius]

It didn't catch me until now. "Institutionalized racism"? What the hell? We don't teach our kids how to hate gypsies. Actually, our left-leaning teachers are trying their best to make children happy with multiculturalism. It's something experience brings naturally.

And frankly, how is this unreasonable to ask them to behave correctly? Excusing them for their bad behavior because they are different and "suffer since centuries" is just a big incentive for them to keep acting like that. Not like they suffer nowadays besides.

Finally, what structures are "keeping the gypsy man down", so to speak? And what responsability do they have anyway? If you're talking about governments, they were elected to represent the people. It's hard to dismantle them, especially when there is absolutely no constitution that mention them.

[PrimeJunta]

How many gypsies are there in Finland?

 

 

About 10,000. Most of them in my city though. Plus we get a healthy fresh supply from Bulgaria and Romania every summer these days. There's a pretty vocal political movement who wants to send them right back where they came from, by the way. I don't think that would solve anything.

 

1. It got that way because the gypsies never cared to fight for a legitimate position in society (which is the only way a minority gets such a position).

Really? The various historical "gypsy laws" systematically discriminating against them have nothing to do with it?

 

 

2. Internal societal structure of the gypsies themselves. Its not about a single leader or an ideology, its rock hard habits without the willingness to change. 

3. Everything everyone else said was true, there were honest efforts to integrate gypsies. They were failures. There were effectively extermination campaigns (nazi camps, forced sterilizations). They failed too. The gypsy mentality is total, in the sense that it regulates the entire life of the individual and is extremely resistant to change.

 

I have no idea what is to be done. The solution for that question has eluded an entire generation of leaders in all European societies.

You know, I have no easy, pat solutions either.

 

How I'd approach it, though, is that I'd try to make the barriers to integration for anyone who wants to integrate as low as possible. Currently they're pretty high. Some of those barriers are, no doubt, from social mores among the Roma communities. There's not a whole lot I can do about them -- stamping my foot and going "Integrate, you fools! Integrate!" is unlikely to help -- so I'd try to figure out what I could do about the barriers on my side.

 

I'd also attempt to identify where there is obvious discrimination against them, and crack down on that. For example, Roma are subject to pretty crazy police brutality in most European countries (certainly including both the Czech Republic and Finland). I would crack down hard on that.

 

Hey, here's a gypsy joke for ya, since you're so into that sort of thing.

 

"How many cops does it take to beat up a gypsy?"

"None. He fell down the stairs."

 

I would provide better educational opportunities. I would recognize Roma culture and language at school; for example, I would offer classes in Roma for those who want them.

 

I would also attempt to work with the Roma communities themselves, to find out what it is these communities actually lack, and then see what could be done about it.

 

That sort of thing.

 

And I would recognize that this would be a slow, long, uphill slog, with lots of setbacks and very little progress.

Edited May 21, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Merlkir]

This is not even funny. Police brutality? Yeah, I know one case like that. I actually JUST read about it, because it happened yesterday, near the town I was born in. 

 

A gypsy family was having a drunk dispute and one of them called the cops. The cops showed up and the family joined up against them, beating the cops who came to help them. 

 

The police don't dare raise a finger with gypsies around, it's just not worth it. A friend of mine is a cop in Ostrava, one of the most gypsy populated cities. He has a lot of stories to tell, he clearly doesn't like gypsies. But not once did he tell us about anything even remotely resembling police brutality specific to gypsies. In fact they avoid getting physical with them like the plague. (your career is not worth a kick in the ribs, however satisfying it may be)

[LadyCrimson]

All right ... I think this thread has devolved far enough, for long enough. Time for a time out.