Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Baffle]

Fair enough, but compared to having people like Tanis or Elrond or Spock who are half elf and half human, which isn't a problem at all, even something that's only vaguely a problem is bigger.

Tanis seemed like a good guy but jesus I wish he'd scratched his beard less.

This is a bit more of a balanced article on it: https://www.denofgeek.com/games/dungeons-and-dragons-half-race-changes-racism-controversy/

(I'm not a player or follower of D&D stuff generally, though I do like the manuals - I just searched for this given the opening line of the referenced article and some of the other content on that site that I thought was, you know, not great.)

 

[Baffle]

1: In-universe, what's the explanation for them disappearing? Were they wiped out? Did different species stop banging? I'd assume there'd at least be passing explanation as to this, but I'm not counting on it.

2: From an out-of-universe perspective, the rationale is backwards. Half-races in fantasy (or sci-fi, with Spock being an example) are often based on real world prejudice. Rarely in-depth allagories, but alagories all the same. Usually, the prejudice is regarded as a bad thing. So if Wizards is so concerned about racism, why remove something from your setting that, even at its most basic, is usually a reminder that prejudice is bad?

From brief reading on the subject, you're still able to create elf/human and orc/human (and I assume other/other) hybrid characters, they just won't have their own specified race, in the same way that (apparently) there aren't half-halfling or half-dwarf or half-whatever specific races. They haven't been removed as such by that understanding, just implementation has been amended.

 

[Avnger]

From brief reading on the subject, you're still able to create elf/human and orc/human (and I assume other/other) hybrid characters, they just won't have their own specified race, in the same way that (apparently) there aren't half-halfling or half-dwarf or half-whatever specific races. They haven't been removed as such by that understanding, just implementation has been amended.

Clickbait outrage aside, this is the true answer. The entire system is being reworked to allow more than just your generic half-elf and half-human. You'll be able to create a lizardman/dwarf or a drow/aarakocra alongside your standard human/elf with a more all-encompassing mechanic. In typical fashion, certain culture-warriors are trying to misinform to continue milking the hate gravy-train.

 

[Silvanus]

2: From an out-of-universe perspective, the rationale is backwards. Half-races in fantasy (or sci-fi, with Spock being an example) are often based on real world prejudice. Rarely in-depth allagories, but alagories all the same. Usually, the prejudice is regarded as a bad thing. So if Wizards is so concerned about racism, why remove something from your setting that, even at its most basic, is usually a reminder that prejudice is bad?

Disclaimer: I don't know much about DnD. I've played DnD just once (as in one scenario over a few meets, not just one meet), and I've read Order of the Stick. That's the extent of my DnD 'knowledge'.

So, more a question than a counterargument. Are the Drow actually always evil? Because if so, that rather invalidates the argument that their inclusion makes a point about prejudice being wrong.

((N.B. that if Baffle and Avnger are right, and they've not even been removed but rather just the implementation has been adjusted, then the whole argument seems moot)).

 

[Thaluikhain]

So, more a question than a counterargument. Are the Drow actually always evil? Because if so, that rather invalidates the argument that their inclusion makes a point about prejudice being wrong.

OOTS has a line about drow being made up purely of individuals that want to be free of their evil drow society that sorta fits. The default is that they are always evil, but all the always evil races have exceptions so they aren't always evil. Cause consistency isn't a thing.

Certainly drow society seems based on being evil, with assassin being the most popular job, and everyone having spider incest with their sisters and slaves, and those two are not mutually exclusive.

EDIT: But, as you say, they aren't getting rid of half elfs and half orcs, so the whole thing is more pointless waffle and misinformation.

 

[Absent]

So, they are keeping the Drow. Are they keeping them as being the one inherently evil elf race, and coincidently, the one elf race that has dark skin and is ruled by women? Cause that's a bit of a biggie.

on the grounds that they are “not comfortable” including an “inherently racist” concept in the game.

This is so dumb. All fantasy and scifi is "inherently racist". It's part of their appeal. You have pre-existing, separate "races" of beings with pre-determined, intrinsic abilities. In fact they are so distinct that, in practice, they're closer to "species" (if, like races, they did "cross-breed" that much, they would be, like humans, a continuum where any racial denomination is scientifically absurd, whereas species stay distinct precisely because they don't cross-breed or have sterile children if they do).

It's fantasy. It postulates creatures from different origins (for either cosmogony or astronomy reasons), it postulates determinism, it postulates every thing that makes the imaginary world of racists so succesfully appealing : conveniently knowing the traits of a being you meet, just by assessing their look and origin. The problem is just when racists apply this fantasy reading grid to the real world, where it technically doesn't make sense (it makes partially sense for dogs, because we manufacture their races by preventing crossbreeding, it would make sense for humans if we did the same -which racist want us to- or if human groups were geographically isolated).

So, getting rid of "racism" in fantasy would mean erasing elves, trolls, gnolls, etc. Re-defining them as one species/race, one origin, and a continuum of appearances, distinct from their continuum of abilities. Or getting rid of all extra-terrestrials in sci-fi.

Seriously, progressives really seem as confused as conservatives, on these matters.

 

[Silvanus]

This is so dumb. All fantasy and scifi is "inherently racist". It's part of their appeal. You have pre-existing, separate "races" of beings with pre-determined, intrinsic abilities.

?? Those things aren't in all fantasy and sci-fi. The exceptions aren't even rare, they're very common.

That's a really bizarre take, gotta say.

In fact they are so distinct that, in practice, they're closer to "species" (if, like races, they did "cross-breed" that much, they would be, like humans, a continuum where any racial denomination is scientifically absurd, whereas species stay distinct precisely because they don't cross-breed or have sterile children if they do).

Point of correction: offspring of hybrid parents aren't always sterile, though that was long thought to be the case. But successful mating has occurred and been documented among several, including Ligers.

Plus, of course, neanderthals were a distinct species or (possibly sub-species) from homo sapiens, yet almost certainly interbreed with them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

?? Those things aren't in all fantasy and sci-fi. The exceptions aren't even rare, they're very common.

That's a really bizarre take, gotta say.

Eh, for a long time the mainstream cliche was that all fantasy was ripping off LotR, and all sci-fi was ripping off Star Trek or Star Wars. To an extent that's still true.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So, more a question than a counterargument. Are the Drow actually always evil? Because if so, that rather invalidates the argument that their inclusion makes a point about prejudice being wrong.

Drow are not always evil. They never had been, so it's kind of weird that nerds made a stink out it when WotC said so. The most prominent example of a Drow is a chaotic good ranger named Drizzt. The main Drow society in the Forgotten Realms happens to be an evil matriarchy though.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Drow are not always evil. They never had been, so it's kind of weird that nerds made a stink out it when WotC said so. The most prominent example of a Drow is a chaotic good ranger named Drizzt. The main Drow society in the Forgotten Realms happens to be an evil matriarchy though.

But is not Drizzt's main thing him being a rebel against the rest of the Drow, who are evil?

(Excepting other similar rebels that got made once he got popular, that is)

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Clickbait outrage aside, this is the true answer. The entire system is being reworked to allow more than just your generic half-elf and half-human. You'll be able to create a lizardman/dwarf or a drow/aarakocra alongside your standard human/elf with a more all-encompassing mechanic. In typical fashion, certain culture-warriors are trying to misinform to continue milking the hate gravy-train.

Honestly, it's about time. It's framed super weird though

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

But is not Drizzt's main thing him being a rebel against the rest of the Drow, who are evil?

(Excepting other similar rebels that got made once he got popular, that is)

Which means the Drow aren't inherently evil, yeah. We're kinda conflating Drow (the society) and Drow (the species). It's basically an ethnostate.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So let me get this straight: you're ascribing more credibility to the parents' side (of an ongoing suit) because it was reported on by a left-leaning publication? Is that the flimsy logic you expect me to adopt?

Yes.

Because the argument that they're transphobic bigots who want all Trans people put in ovens or whatever is a baseless aspersion with 0 supporting evidence coming from people like you.

I'm ascribing credibility to the parents side because they were interviewed by what you and others have previously claimed is a RIGHT LEANING publication in a time where right wing people objecting to Trans people at all is seen as fine and lorded and they chose to say they're fine with Trans people and educating people about Trans people rather than the obvious move they could have taken of playing to the proverbial crowd for more easy support.

O.....k. Except of course that diagnosing and drugging-up preschoolers isn't profitable at all; it would actually be exceptionally costly.

And you're insisting it will happen based on literally nothing, nobody has called for it to happen, and it's never happened.

This is all ridiculous prejudiced delusion. "They're grooming our kids!!", pearl-clutching moral-panic. Exactly the same as the hyper-conservative idiots of the 1950s whining about how gay rights would lead down a slippery slope to kids being groomed by molesters in schools. It was prejudiced nonsense then, and it's prejudiced nonsense now.

I don't know what delusion you believe you're arguing against here because my actual argument was:

The whole nonbinary gender idea of fighting the system and the powers that be is a stupid fight that ultimately won't harm the system at all but will harm the people on the bottom rugs who help run or maintain it as they have to adapt their forms and systems for 137 gender identities.

In terms of the "They're grooming our kids" court case that I linked to is the parents arguing just that the school even actively pressuring the child over it.

It's about the idea of checks and balances being in place and like it or not checks and balances are in place regarding gay people (the same ones done with straight people) and not treating them as special or pretending that them being gay makes them magic and perfect. How do we know this? Because there are instances reported of gay people being caught similarly to reports of straight people being caught too.

Oh and this part of my reply is the non jackass version of how I could have replied without going full on "DO YOU SEE" yet mode.

As far as profitable?

It would be because while the school wouldn't benefit a lifelong course of specialised drugs that can be sold at jacked up prices because USA? Yeh that's profitable.

I see you're now buying into that litterbox non-story, which was an obvious hoax.

Anyway, this is just yet another false analogy. Yet again: "if you support X then you must support Y completely different thing" is the flimsiest, shittiest kind of logic, which most of us got over after leaving school.

Except you literally haven't presented a counter argument.

Your argument is "People are saying and applying the label to themselves thus self identifying as it so we must respect it purely based on their say so." Thus I'm providing examples of other labels people can apply to themselves and saying should we take said people at their word about things too?

Why are you for taking one group at their word for something and not wanting anything else but want clinical diagnosis for depression when a person saying it should be enough right, a person applying the EMO label which comes with the implication of tem being depressed suddenly require a different standard to prove themselves to you. WHY?

Somebody who doesn't fit the gender binary. It's an umbrella term.

Based on what?
What do you define the Gender Binary as?
What makes a person Male to you?
What makes a person Female to you?

Is it Genotype, phenotype, neurological make up, public gendered performance or expression?

I really want to know this because this is a possibly hilarious can of worms for you to want to open in this discussion now.

Methinks you may need to revisit high school biology, because a lot of what you're coming out with is scientifically illiterate, even if we're just talking about biological sex.

You know when you don't watch a video from actual scientific researchers and then accuse a person citing stuff from the video of being scientifically illiterate you look like a fool right?

It aint me who needs to revisit high school biology here.......

Firstly: why does it require full understanding and knowledge in order to accept something? The only thing I need to know about somebody's self-identity or sexual behaviour is that it doesn't hurt anyone, respects consent, and (if it involves an additional claim of fact) that it's recognised by experts/research. I don't need to be able to fully understand something. I don't really understand monosexual people, but I can accept them, because I'm not a dickhead.

If you want me to define something, I'd be happy to, like I defined (the very simple term) non-binary above. But you have to actually tell me what you want defined. You can't just say "137+ GENDERS!!!", which is stupid hyperbole.

Magic real, you don't have to understand it you just have to accept I have magic powers.


In terms of a less point scoring actually constructive counter argument to you.
Mostly people in social science not biology which lets just say that's a whole other can of worms and unreplicatable research on a huge scale that's still feeling the impact of a massive scandal that happened not all that long ago in the field and apparently has chosen to just not bother improving it's standards at all. I mean this is the same field that had people adjacent to it happily citing people who called Pokemon satanic influences only a few year back so I hope you don't mind if I don't have the greatest of trust in such kind of field.

Also it's not stupid hyperbole 137 is the number activists wanted to be officially recognised lol.

OK. So what? So this is just idle speculation with zero impact?

What if people in 5 centuries start thinking lightbulbs are evil? So what? Are we supposed to guide our thinking by pure, baseless speculation about what a bunch of unrelated people might think at some unspecified point in the future?

Why not it seems like some people are guided by evidence less groups of people in the present day.

The point I was making is to try and actually get you to engage with the argument in good faith rather than you normal highly dismissing "I'm right your wrong because" arguments where you almost never actually prove or back up your points and just end at because and work on some belief you are automatically right because unknowable reasons or something..

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

It's worth noting, as the article says, that we don't and won't get the judges side of the story, as per policy. Still, kid's crowdfunding went good

Why not they didn't bother with the UVA rape accusations Rolling Stones reported that could have destroyed a dude life and lead to attacks by protestors on a fraternity house. Rolling stones didn't speak to the guy (whom the university had cleared) or the fraternity who showed their records and had witnesses stating the claimed party never happened.

Ah yes, Kiss the Girl, where Eric and Ariel are so slow getting 'consent' that a bunch of sea guppies can turn their boat over. 0_0

And Poor Unfortunate Souls, where Ariel gives her consent by magic quill.

...damn it, I don't even like TLM that much, but sweet Tiamat, Disney's being stupid. Again. Like, more than usual.

This is why Disney should stop live action remakes and do Muppet action remakes instead.

'Dungeons & Dragons' To Remove Half-Species From Player's Handbook, Claims The Entire Idea Is "Inherently Racist"

Dungeons & Dragons will be removing 'half-' species characters from their official materials because they are "inherently racist".

boundingintocomics.com

Ah yes, half-species in fantasy is racist.

Y'know, how half-species are used as a metaphor against prejudice, when the half-species character in question tends to get animus from one or both sides, and struggles with their identity, yet comes to appreciate their self-worth? Nup. None of that's true, every half-species is "inherently problematic"

...fine, whatever.

Just the next step in the idea of cultural mixing and enjoying things from other cultures is bigoted and problematic it seems.

Are they going to rewrite Ariel? Because let's face it, her behaviour was always a little stalkerish.

Nah it's fine when a girl does it in [Current year]

This is so dumb. All fantasy and scifi is "inherently racist". It's part of their appeal. You have pre-existing, separate "races" of beings with pre-determined, intrinsic abilities. In fact they are so distinct that, in practice, they're closer to "species" (if, like races, they did "cross-breed" that much, they would be, like humans, a continuum where any racial denomination is scientifically absurd, whereas species stay distinct precisely because they don't cross-breed or have sterile children if they do).

It's fantasy. It postulates creatures from different origins (for either cosmogony or astronomy reasons), it postulates determinism, it postulates every thing that makes the imaginary world of racists so succesfully appealing : conveniently knowing the traits of a being you meet, just by assessing their look and origin. The problem is just when racists apply this fantasy reading grid to the real world, where it technically doesn't make sense (it makes partially sense for dogs, because we manufacture their races by preventing crossbreeding, it would make sense for humans if we did the same -which racist want us to- or if human groups were geographically isolated).

So, getting rid of "racism" in fantasy would mean erasing elves, trolls, gnolls, etc. Re-defining them as one species/race, one origin, and a continuum of appearances, distinct from their continuum of abilities. Or getting rid of all extra-terrestrials in sci-fi.

Seriously, progressives really seem as confused as conservatives, on these matters.

Except to a greater or lesser extent certain traits can still be found predominantly in certain racial groups in the present world. It's not determinism so much as actual traits.
Malaria resistance (yes really)
Lactose intolerance
Covid susceptibility - figured I'd bring up the big one a lot of people know about.

At one point or another various things would have started as genetic variance who knows blonde hair likely started as a variance and until the world became more connected may have been found predominantly in certain areas.

In fantasy world I'd argue it's not racist as such to think people for whom the next town over is 2 days ride might not exactly see the greatest variance in peoples genetics.

In Sci-fi you have more of a point and I will say a number of shows have attempted to handle this by creating more variance in their aliens. E.G. Star Trek where the ability to Mind Meld was somewhat retconned to be a rare genetic trait few actually had or the changes Lower Decks have made so not all Orion Women emit pheromones.

 

[Absent]

Except to a greater or lesser extent certain traits can still be found predominantly in certain racial groups in the present world. It's not determinism so much as actual traits.
Malaria resistance (yes really)
Lactose intolerance
Covid susceptibility - figured I'd bring up the big one a lot of people know about.

At one point or another various things would have started as genetic variance who knows blonde hair likely started as a variance and until the world became more connected may have been found predominantly in certain areas.

In fantasy world I'd argue it's not racist as such to think people for whom the next town over is 2 days ride might not exactly see the greatest variance in peoples genetics.

In Sci-fi you have more of a point and I will say a number of shows have attempted to handle this by creating more variance in their aliens. E.G. Star Trek where the ability to Mind Meld was somewhat retconned to be a rare genetic trait few actually had or the changes Lower Decks have made so not all Orion Women emit pheromones.

You're talking about physical traits such as, well, skin resistance to sun (increased with melanin), or vulnerabilty to some diseases (such as drepanocytosis), or, heck, statistical height, etc... Bodies are statistically grouped. But racialism posits that there is a qualitative jump between a certain number of "races" (the "black" race, the "white" race, and, depending on versions, 2 or 6 or whatever number of others) as if there wasn't a quantitative continuity between them (with all shades of skin colours for instance, arbitrarily lumped into one or the other "race") and as if the superficial traits that are arbitrarily selected to define "races" were codependant (whereas skin color, body shape, nose shape, etc, fluctuate independently). And also it links mental abilities, heck even moral traits, to phenotypes. It's nonsense in too many ways. And to the scientific mind, it's absolutely terrifying to see US administration still use the word "race" in its descriptions.

But also, when it comes to fantasy, I didn't mean variations from one village's humans to another's, or even en exaggerated version of medieval inter-remoteness. I mean the racialism underlying any world with different sentient species - gnomes, elves, dwarves, fairies, trolls, or however they call them. Their very function is to build up a typology of creatures with predictable traits, abilities, etc. And, if this typology can somewhat survive "half-breeds" (technically, more like "interspecies hybrids"), it loses its meaning if it's replaced by a "human race"-like continuum with all beings being genotypically/phenotypically like 32% troll, 24% fairy, 11% human, 23% gnome, 6% elf and 4% dwarf. It would be coherent with the idea of these being "races" (in the real world sense), but it would dilute their point as plot devices and symbolic functions. Or at least, it would entirely overhaul the world, and, again, make them an absolute continuum. Which could be quite cool for one universe, but I doubt it'd become a standard. And if anything, ad&d wouldn't be recognizable.

There's no way for ad&d to have their cake and eat it. Their classification is racialist/speicist. And frankly, it's the point. Scifi/fantasy is the de-toxified refuge of a toxic romantic mythology that, for a certain while, was the western civilization's mythology about the world (with its "sentient aliens" on remote continents).

 

[Hawki]

So, more a question than a counterargument. Are the Drow actually always evil? Because if so, that rather invalidates the argument that their inclusion makes a point about prejudice being wrong.

To my knowledge bar a few exceptions, but I don't know how that's related to the half-race stuff.

((N.B. that if Baffle and Avnger are right, and they've not even been removed but rather just the implementation has been adjusted, then the whole argument seems moot)).

“Frankly, we are not comfortable, and haven’t been for years with any of the options that start with ‘half’,” he explained of this decision. “The half construction is inherently racist so we simply aren’t going to include it in the new Player’s Handbook.”

Explain the logic behind it.

This is why Disney should stop live action remakes and do Muppet action remakes instead.

First, how would you live-action remake the Muppets? Aren't they already live-action?

Second, don't give them any ideas, because you know Disney's creatively bankrupt enough to do it.

Just the next step in the idea of cultural mixing and enjoying things from other cultures is bigoted and problematic it seems.

The elves and dwarfs had the right idea. They kept to their own kind!

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

To my knowledge bar a few exceptions, but I don't know how that's related to the half-race stuff.



“Frankly, we are not comfortable, and haven’t been for years with any of the options that start with ‘half’,” he explained of this decision. “The half construction is inherently racist so we simply aren’t going to include it in the new Player’s Handbook.”

Explain the logic behind it.

For a while the term "half cast" in the UK was seen as offensive to some because some weird shit about them thinking purity mattered or something. Hence mixed race is now the term used.

First, how would you live-action remake the Muppets? Aren't they already live-action?

Second, don't give them any ideas, because you know Disney's creatively bankrupt enough to do it.

No no, not Live action remake, Muppet action remake. Like Muppet's Treasure Island only you do the classic Disney stuff but with the Muppets and add in some Muppet style humour.

Peter Pan with Kermit as Peter Pan and Miss Piggy as Tinkerbell.

Beauty & The Beast but it's Animal as the beast.

etc

 

[Hawki]

For a while the term "half cast" in the UK was seen as offensive to some because some weird shit about them thinking purity mattered or something. Hence mixed race is now the term used.

...and?

Fantasy species aren't real. Unless the fantasy setting is intentionally using its species/races as alagory, it's a large stretch to join such comparisons.

No no, not Live action remake, Muppet action remake. Like Muppet's Treasure Island only you do the classic Disney stuff but with the Muppets and add in some Muppet style humour.

Peter Pan with Kermit as Peter Pan and Miss Piggy as Tinkerbell.

Beauty & The Beast but it's Animal as the beast.

etc

That's not too bad, actually. Or at least, it's not like Disney owns these works, so the Muppets doing their own take would actually be preferable to a lot of Disney's remakes.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes.

Then lol. That's all.

I don't know what delusion you believe you're arguing against here because my actual argument was:

The whole nonbinary gender idea of fighting the system and the powers that be is a stupid fight that ultimately won't harm the system at all but will harm the people on the bottom rugs who help run or maintain it as they have to adapt their forms and systems for 137 gender identities.

"The whole nonbinary gender idea of fighting the system and powers that be", Jesus Christ, how far down the right-wing rabid rabbit hole can someone be!

The "nonbinary gender idea" is just that someone can have a gender identity outside the rigid traditional binary, as some cultures have had for centuries. That's the idea. I know you'd like to conflate this with some evil political movement, but they ain't the same.

As far as profitable?

It would be because while the school wouldn't benefit a lifelong course of specialised drugs that can be sold at jacked up prices because USA? Yeh that's profitable.

So... nobody has profited, there's no plan in place that would make it profitable. And schools would have to buy those massively expensive drugs, so they wouldn't make money, even from the scenario you've dreamt up.

There's jumping at shadows, then there's just moonbat delusional making shit up.

Except you literally haven't presented a counter argument.

Counterargument isn't required when the original proposition was literally just a complete fabrication. I don't need a "counterargument" to the lizard people mind control conspiracy either.

Based on what?
What do you define the Gender Binary as?
What makes a person Male to you?
What makes a person Female to you?

Is it Genotype, phenotype, neurological make up, public gendered performance or expression?

I really want to know this because this is a possibly hilarious can of worms for you to want to open in this discussion now.

So in order to argue against the idea of nonbinary people, you're literally going to argue that male and female don't exist? That's the approach you're gonna take? It's bold, I'll give it that.

 

[Silvanus]

“Frankly, we are not comfortable, and haven’t been for years with any of the options that start with ‘half’,” he explained of this decision. “The half construction is inherently racist so we simply aren’t going to include it in the new Player’s Handbook.”

Explain the logic behind it.

Why should I? Its not my logic.

If I were to guess, though: calling someone "half-X" tends to be derogatory, implying they don't have a full identity. Here in the UK, "half-caste" is a racist slur with a pretty nasty history behind it. Bisexual people get called "half gay", which then leads to bi erasure and people assuming they'll just 'admit' they're gay later. It implies that bi and gay aren't distinct things.