Do you really think that peoples who see a fictional fantasy race of dark skinned rapist and murderers underground dwellers immediately think it must be about peoples with skin color X or Y ? unless of course they already had those thought to begin with.

Honestly apart from racists and the perpetually offended crowd who actually think like that ?

Peoples loves to bring Jaws and it's impact on sharks in this sort of "impact of stereotypes" discussion but I think it's both a good and bad example; yes after watching Jaws some peoples got more afraid of sharks than they were before, but it's not because they were magically brainwashed, it was simply because, especially at the time, peoples didn't really knew anything about sharks apart that they swim fast and have teeth.

But nowadays if you have a basic knowledge on shark, as in you watch a documentary on them once in you life, then you know it's not true and no matter how many "Shark" movies or Sharknado sequels you watch it won't change that.

In the same way if you are not racist toward black peoples to begin with you can play hundreds of games featuring the "Abyssidians" as the titular bad guys without starting to hate black peoples or even invent similarities between them, and if you are a racist, then it's not changing their skin color to milky white because some peoples on twitter were offended by it that will do anything to change your mind.

...and then I read the comments. Other 2 days of hospitalization caused by extreme facepalming.

If you don't want people picking up on things you said, maybe don't say them in a discussion forum? Like the whole race vs species thing, which you started. If you think I'm remembering things wrongly, I can always provide a quote.

Regardless, the Vistani are the main point of discussion - they always have been. Even *if* you think they weren't and it was always about some convoluted point about Orcs and Drows and how racist their depiction is because they are based on the Maori or Inuit people IRL (lol), I clarified my position not once, not twice, but 4(!) times subsequently. I think some of that should have given you a clue what my main point was. I can only conclude you thought you noticed a weak position of mine to argue, picked up on that, and harped on about it for 3 pages for no reason except as a sort 'GOTCHA' moment. Even after I clarified my position. To be honest, that's not the kind of person I want to have a discussion with.

You don't know that, you can't say that. It's not clear whether Orcs as a race/species doesn't have the variability in genetics as domestic dogs do for instance. They might. In which case, there would be chichuahas and great Danes in terms of size alone, in variability. The point is, you don't know, so why pretend you do?

And why not leave the door open for more depth and complexity for an origin story?

So once again, the whole point of OP and the original blog post, and what the actual topic is and how it started, is the Vistani situation. It's YOU who is trying to make it about something else. Not sure why.

In any case, you are purposefully ignoring my main points, you didn't even comment on the summary of them in my last post (that's really the only thing that mattered from my side in this whole discussion that got you triggered), so unless you want to address and honestly acknowledge what my arguments are, I struggle to see where this particular conversation is even headed to. It was even numbered, as a whopping list of 2 points.

It seems like only physical harm is sufficient as a measure of ACTUAL HARM (caps are so unnecessary btw) to you GameRager, so you won't actually see that in this case (or many other cases).

But if you're blind to other kinds of harm, harm to reputation, livelihoods, and quality of life, then you are very ignorant about this.

And the oppressed minority doesn't need to be only party that got offended - pretty much anyone with empathy and human rights values and morals would be offended by this. It's not limited to the minority that got insulted. I don't know why you would even believe that.

Rubbish. It's called demand for goods and services. It's not called 'psychological manipulation' by firms to prey on people's emotions. That's actually called advertising, and guess what? Everyone does it, and nobody bats an eye. It's not even considered harmful. Nike advertises new running shoes in an enticing and attractive way, and you didn't even need a new pair, but you oh so want them. That's 'preying on people's emotions' too, but I don't see you GameRager throwing a hissy fit about that.

What you fail to see, that firms, especially larger ones, are incredibly professional and consider these things very important. I don't know if you've ever worked in a bigger firm, but try and be prejudist or express some controversial sentiment regarding minorities or rights for example in RL or social media, and see what happens. It goes against the very core of professionalism, and is pretty nasty to boot. It makes your fellow workers uncomfortable or downright offended, or they might even be directly impacted by your slurs. And from the firm's point of view? If their policies veer into that territory? It's not uncommon for heads to roll due to lost sponsors, consumers, revenue, and reputation. That's just how it is in the real world.

So you can argue until you're blue in the face about free speech and not causing any harm to anyone - but you would get smacked on your head in the real world.

It's different because it's psychological projection, and completely unfounded. It's literally the same thing as calling out a racist for racism/prejudice, and the racist says 'that's racist, i'm offended by that and you persecuting my kind'. It's that absurd. It seems like a free-out-of-jail card for ignorant people, but most people know better. Not you though GameRager, for some reason.

What if the fictional race/people are based on RL people? What kind of message does that send? How does that make people feel? What harm could come to them due to these stereotypes and reductionist tropes?

You talk just below this, about me having my 'mind made up' and 'not liking to have my thoughts challenged', but you lack the empathy to even consider the opposing view and I will be amazed, truly astounded, if you ever reply to those questions honestly.

Dude, as you seem to have memory issues here you go : Before you started your whole tirade the only thing I said was that it was probably more correct to call them "species" instead of "races" given that they were not humans (and it was mostly to avoid having to put race/species everytime), you are the one that started a whole tangent on that.

Take a look in this thread, before you started bringing them up over and over again there was only a single post mentioned them.

What are you even talking about now, I answered a quote from you talking about Orcs and that what we started talking about, it's only after that you brought the Vistani into the mix, to help you remember let's see the first of your post I was answering to (emphasis mine): -

There is absolutely nothing to know, it's up to the author to decide, if said author says that race X has 5 time the strength of a normal human but a less intelligent, that's how it is, period, it doesn't matter how genetics variation said race has or doesn't have. If author A says Orcs (replace Orcs by anything else) are just misunderstood slightly bigger humans then they are misunderstood slightly bigger humans, if author B says Orcs are baby eating 5 meters monstrosity then it's not a stereotype that's what they are. In a fiction it's the author that decide what reality is.

Because I already answered to both your points in previous posts, multiple times, re-read them if you cannot remember them before calling peoples "triggered" for simply having a different opinions than yours...

But let me help you (there are other instances but I take the last one)

For 1: And for 2 And to be clear I am not opposed to changing rules or even lore per see, I just disagree that it "must" be changed because of flavor of the day politics. (Again talking about the Orcs, Drows, and other non human races/species/whatever not the Vistani)

Yes and yes. But at the same time I can understand if a black person could be annoyed that people of his skin-colour and maybe more resemblances are depicted essentially as evil savages again. Especially since there is real racism maybe even affecting this person in the here and now. And they would have every right to speak up against the way the "Abyssidians" are handled in these games.
And finally, unless the devs clearly state it themselves, nobody knows if they simply didn't think about it when they created "Abyssidians" and simply liked the "dark evil" trope, or if they actually had real black people in their sick racist minds, actually aiming at displaying those in the worst possible way.

And for those who don't give it much thought, something like the "Abyssidians" might cement and perpetuate culturally transported images of the "savage black", even when they're not really aware of it. People seldom question concepts they grew up with, especially if they're reinforced, even sometimes indoctrinated by stereotypes used in media this way.

Take Tolkien - a child of his time of course - with all the good guys being white - the good heroic humans, the hobbits and of course the elbes. And Sauron is black, his land is black and in the last battles black savages come in ships and fight for him. I love LotR, but this "casual racism" is something I think we should try to avoid nowadays.

May have more to do with his legendarium being conceived as an "english mythology" of his own devise, and how the lands where the action takes place are roughly equivalent to northern Europe (he himself stated that Shire is placed on the latitude of Oxford). But of course we can bend over backwards and find racism in the fact he didn't envision english mythology featuring people from Africa >rolls eyes<.

How in the f&^@ is Sauron "black"? What, are the Black Riders racist now because they wear black? Have we seriously decended to that level of insanity? Not every instance of something being "black" is a refrence to ethnicity.

I have already at length explained Tolkien's own disdain for racism, and yet always we go back to finding some way to imply racism on his part. Not meeting today's forced quota of diversity is not tantamount to "casual racism".

So you admit that you started it, and I just picked up on that? Thought so.

IT's clearly in the link in OP, and the whole reason for this thread. I don't understand why you can't see that and are more inclined to go off on tangents to the actual relevant issues.

Orcs were clearly just an example, and in no way my main argument, unlike the Vistani whom you conveniently consider something to be ignored, an 'exception'.

If the author decides, and they are changing it, then I guess you too should be powerless and helpless and maybe even happy about the future dictatorial changes.

My point 1. was:

1. The depiction of races (including the RL social term here, though this would be more accurately people originating from a specific region with a distinct culture) with crude and degrading stereotypes based off of the real world. The depiction of the Vistani people drawn degradingly from Romani stereotypes is the example here, that caused this whole mess to begin with.

To which your apparent reply was (pages ago before I had written these down mind you)

"Which races from the real world are "degraded" by the Orcs ? or Drows ? or even Dwarves ? what race from the real world were used for the Elves, the Illithids, or most of the other non-human humanoid races ?

Last time I checked we don't have that many elves, Orcs or Goblins walking around nowadays, there are some Trolls on the Net but that's about it."

The above two being completely irrelevant to what I am saying.

"Yes there are the Vistani (which are a humans variant by the way and not a different "race" like Orcs & co) but I already answered about that previously, agreeing that when copying too closely an existing current culture special care/respect was needed. "

The above being the only relevant thing you said regarding my point 1., and you agreeing with me that the DnD creators were wrong to depict them that way. I have yet to see anything you disagree with my points at this stage.

My point 2. is:

2. The new proposed changes (as a result of the above) to allow more complex origins and starting conditions, and the reasons for those changes. These being wanting to move away from pigeonholing characters into cookie-cutter caricatures, and wanting to add an additional layer of depth during the character creation process.

to which your reply was
"I was just pointing that no, IMHO, it wouldn't necessarily automatically make the premise any more interesting to get rid of races specificities, you can have interesting characters with them and boring ones without them. "

Which shows an ignorance of the proposed changes - you could still make an Orc with twohanded big sticks and might and low intelligence, but you'd also have the *option* to do something else with them.

The added depth and complexity should be more interesting, clearly.

And there we have it. You're outraged at the outrage culture (however well-intentioned), but you might not even disagree with the changes. That's an entirely different conversation, and as you already agreed with the DnD creators being wrong about depicting the Vistani as Romani, I don't see what's left to discuss.

inb4 the Vistani debacle is apparently a side diversion and not the main point...

Outrage because of someone else's outrage is very in fashion. This culture war is stupid beyond all logic, but it will continue because no one wants to "lose."

That's because that should be the kind of harm that mostly matters to change things to such a degree...major physical or mental(think ptsd level) harm.

Near anything else is just people being offended over next to nothing.

(And about the caps, they are used to call attention to some parts of my response over others. As in those are the ones I would like you to focus most on when reading it)

Not blind to that sort of stuff. Just focusing on what actually matters and needs changing.

And no, some words some perpetually offended types of 'progressives' find bad isn't worth the time to change in most cases.

Especially when compared to worse things in the world. Actual harmful things.

No, only those with nothing better to do(aka moral busybodies and the easily offended) would be bothered by this.

Most members of the prior mentioned groups have even stated that such does not bother them.

And by trying to get such changed for them such people doing so are essentially saying they need to do so as the ones they are trying to 'help' cannot do so themselves, don't know what's best for them, and are essentially too 'weak' to do so. In essence by helping people you and others like you are butting in on other people's problems(likely for qa sense of moral superiority and 'doing good') where such is not needed.

You want to help such people? Go volunteer at a soup kitchen or shelter in a poor area. Mentor someone in such groups who needs it. Maybe go to other countries with worse situations and try to fix them.

But this sort of thing? This does next to nothing but make those like you feel good for a bit and better than some others.

Yes it is. But you seem to not want to see the forest for the trees and are too ingrained into your beliefs to want to change them, so believe what you will.

But don't feign wanting to be open minded here when you are so obviously close minded and intolerant.

They don't care for the most part, and if they could appeal to racist sentiments(as they did to sexist ones in the past regarding women and such) they would likely do so.

That begs the question. If they did such would you say "it's just advertising people. They should be able to do it"?

Say it with me everyone

"Intolerance is intolerance to anyone it's done to. Even those one finds distasteful or bad."

What you are saying here is essentially "It's ok to discriminate against some but not others" which is in and of itself discrimination. But you seem to find it ok to do so if the person is 'bad' in your eyes. That is where your position falls apart.

If you cannot uphold your ideals with all then your position becomes weak, your words become hollow, and you come off looking like a hypocrite.

Let people speak up if they have issues with such. If they don't then let it be. Let them speak up for themselves.

If no one has major problems with it in said group and no one complaining(in said group) can show major harm from such then leave it be and let people play or consume something else.

And if such MUST be changed, then companies should do so for the right reasons. Not to make money, but because it is the right thing to do.

And we shouldn't stop doing things because some person MIGHT be upset or offended.

I am offended by some musical instruments sounds. I don't tell anyone playing such near me to stop playing.

I stated such because from your words it it very clear you very likely have your mind made up, and only come into these kinds of threads to feign interest in the opposing stances then make others look bad.

Akin to same posts made by same minded people on social media for the same reasons.

Tell me, when was the last time you agreed with an opposing point of view someone said? Can you name even one instance?

And PLEASE, when replying to this, try to answer what I have asked and stop with the "oh you probably dislike this 100%, are likely against good change, and you must be all sorts of bad" style responses.

They are getting old and tiresome.

*
*
*

This is my stance on this matter as well.

I don't mind changes made like this if done for the right reasons and not just to appeal to emotions and people's favorite causes to make a buck.

*
*
*

I think they have bigger problems to deal with than fictional depictions in loosely similar fictional races.

It is not just race. People have associated dark and dark colors with evil and light and the sun and such with good since time began most likely.

That's considered racist? Excuse me dude but that is just insane. If this mindset is widespread I now get why a lot of people are absolutely convinced racism is endemic. It just kills the meaning of the word and seriousness of the allegation.
It's something I've seen happen over here as well, but for other, completely political reasons.

Don't want to get involved in the thread though, but I have to agree with the Cheddar Monk here. What's going on is starting to seriously trouble me.

I was not talking about "loosely similar" I was talking about stereotypes derived from the real world translated into fiction. The "black savage rapist" is damn close to the actual depictions of black people in the past, even if you add horns, pointy ears and a weird name.
And actual black people who still feel the repercussions of this racism nowadays don't play video games? Or don't care? Bold assumption.

Are we talking about a specific example? If so could you link it so I can check it out?

Many I have talked to online and off said to me they literally don't care or care very little about such things. And I have talked to a decent number of such people of those groups over the years.

edit: Not trying to insinuate all whites are bad here, but most of the time someone is offended it's oft usually a 'well meaning' white person meddling where they need not do so, usually to get some validation for doing so or because they have been led to believe such is more important than it is.

Orcs are corrupted elves that fell away from Eru (God) being lead astray by Morgoth (more or less Lucifer). They're an evil savage race because they lost their connection to Eru. With that background, I fail to make any such connection.