Bring back the Dark Men of Odus

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by ya.dingus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That depends on the situation. Is it a disability, or simply being willfully ignorant as the cause (having below 100 int/wis)?

One's fine, the other isn't.

Other possibilities exist.

https://wiki.project1999.com/Curse_of_the_Simple_Mind

https://wiki.project1999.com/Idiot_Savant%27s_Cap

[CrazyPro]

Originally Posted by ya.dingus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's break this down from multiple viewpoints, as I believe your argument is intrinsically flawed from multiple facets.

1) Dark doesn't need to be defined. It can be left mysterious, just like how certain texts rely on interpretation of the reader, part of that interpretation adds to the mystery and the fun of it.

However --

2) Let's hypothetically grant your point and say Dark is linked to skin color, and that is what it refers to (this is hypothetical, I will reiterate, this is not what I am claiming).

My question is, what is your point if it is?

That's not racist, that's a descriptor. It's not assigning character qualities neither positive or negative, it's a physical descriptor speaking to a demographic. There is nothing inheriently racist about this.

It's the same thing as asking about a person's race on a population census. There is neither positive nor negative qualities about this, merely used as a tool in human languages as a descriptor.

The problem is that it is YOU that are assigning some kind of nefarious meaning to a certain type of physical description. Your personal (and illogical) inference betrays exactly what you think about certain types of people, and that simply by mentioning a physical descriptor that it carries a negative connotation.

The only logical justification to explain your interpretation is that you have some kind of inherent bias and racism you are applying to the term, and that you are projecting that interpretation on others.

You're actually the problem here, assuming that's what you meant.

I'll be charitable and assume you don't actually mean that however, do you?

These sub 100 Int Antonicans man. Gotta spell out literally everything for them.

I am not assigning negative meaning to anything, this sounds like gaslighting to me. The point is that the name, given the context of it being an Erudite-only guild, is ambiguous.
Just don't put a real life racial descriptor in your Erudite RP guild name, just seems kind of weird. If it can be taken the wrong way, give it a different name.
But in my opinion we need an Ogre RP guild, critical thinking is overrated when you can just ransack villages for fun.

[ya.dingus]

Originally Posted by CrazyPro [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am not assigning negative meaning to anything, this sounds like gaslighting to me. The point is that the name, given the context of it being an Erudite-only guild, is ambiguous.
Just don't put a real life racial descriptor in your Erudite RP guild name, just seems kind of weird. If it can be taken the wrong way, give it a different name.
But in my opinion we need an Ogre RP guild, critical thinking is overrated when you can just ransack villages for fun.

I'll try to be concise and address your points:

1) You assigning meaning is the very crux of the issue. In your own post you quoted

Originally Posted by CrazyPro

Even if that's somehow not the intent of the name, it flattens the identity into something merely visual and racialized.

You're both extremely clear in your intent and interpretation of what you believe the matter to be.

2) Gaslighting isn't positing someone may be incorrect based on their argument / counter arguments (as I provided). Neither is it lying. Gaslighting is the combination of refuting a person's reality while claiming they have some sort of deficiency "they're crazy/unstable, dishonest, etc).

What I'm saying is, that term doesn't mean what you think it means, and you've used it in the wrong context.

3) Not only did I extend a charitable interpretation of your definition, attempting to give you some wiggle room to back out of the flawed position you found yourself in, you then took that good will and attempted to appeal to character assassination (ad hominem) to defend an indefensible position. In short, and while I'm at the risk of being ironic, you're being incredibly intellectually disingenuous.


4)

Originally Posted by CrazyPro

racial descriptor in your Erudite RP, just seems kind of weird.

Again, a racial descriptor does not determine positive or negative qualities. It's simply a descriptor.

It seems you're so very desperate to force people into thinking that race must carry a bias (and in the examples above, a negative bias), but that's categorically and demonstrably not the case, and very much the definition of "racist".

Now please, for your sake, stop being silly. You're making my points for me at this juncture.



PS:

Originally Posted by CrazyPro

If it can be taken the wrong way, give it a different name.

Giving into mental insanity doesn't make you right, it makes you foolish for not standing up for the correct thing, and that's a character flaw.

[Reiwa]

I don't think there's a risk of DMO actually coming back, so if you just let this guy be "right" he won't get to be a pest anymore.

[ya.dingus]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't think there's a risk of DMO actually coming back, so if you just let this guy be "right" he won't get to be a pest anymore.

In lieu of an argument, you've resorted to character assassination again.

This speaks more about you than me.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by ya.dingus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In lieu of an argument, you've resorted to character assassination again.

This speaks more about you than me.

[CrazyPro]

Originally Posted by ya.dingus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll try to be concise and address your points:

1) You assigning meaning is the very crux of the issue. In your own post you quoted

You're both extremely clear in your intent and interpretation of what you believe the matter to be.

2) Gaslighting isn't positing someone may be incorrect based on their argument / counter arguments (as I provided). Neither is it lying. Gaslighting is the combination of refuting a person's reality while claiming they have some sort of deficiency "they're crazy/unstable, dishonest, etc).

What I'm saying is, that term doesn't mean what you think it means, and you've used it in the wrong context.

3) Not only did I extend a charitable interpretation of your definition, attempting to give you some wiggle room to back out of the flawed position you found yourself in, you then took that good will and attempted to appeal to character assassination (ad hominem) to defend an indefensible position. In short, and while I'm at the risk of being ironic, you're being incredibly intellectually disingenuous.


4) Again, a racial descriptor does not determine positive or negative qualities. It's simply a descriptor.

It seems you're so very desperate to force people into thinking that race must carry a bias (and in the examples above, a negative bias), but that's categorically and demonstrably not the case, and very much the definition of "racist".

Now please, for your sake, stop being silly. You're making my points for me at this juncture.



PS:


Giving into mental insanity doesn't make you right, it makes you foolish for not standing up for the correct thing, and that's a character flaw.

I'm not assigning new meaning, I'm pointing out that people could interpret it in problematic ways. Saying "dark men" isn't automatically racist, I never said it was, but given the context of it being the guild name for an Erudite-only guild, why would you possibly want to put what could be seen as a racial descriptor in the guild name?

Who cares about skin color? Just call them Erudites. <Erudites of Odus>, easy. This interpretation of the name "Dark Men of Odus" is pretty much the same as if it was called "Black People of Odus", and do you not see how that name could be problematic?

[ya.dingus]

Originally Posted by CrazyPro [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not assigning new meaning, I'm pointing out that people could interpret it in problematic ways. Saying "dark men" isn't automatically racist, I never said it was, but given the context of it being the guild name for an Erudite-only guild, why would you possibly want to put what could be seen as a racial descriptor in the guild name?

Who cares about skin color? Just call them Erudites. <Erudites of Odus>, easy. This interpretation of the name "Dark Men of Odus" is pretty much the same as if it was called "Black People of Odus", and do you not see how that name could be problematic?

And therein is yet another problem with the argument. Anyone can interpret anything as negative, but that doesn't make them right.

Labeling problematic speech that wasn't problematic was one of the first steps the Leninist party took in controlling the public with setting up communism is Russia in the 20th century.

A little bit of history goes a long way in seeing the same ideological arguments reused today to the same misleading and dangerous effects.

Under your logic why call them Erudites, just call them humans. Scratch that, that's offensive to anyone not human, just call them people.

Scratch that, people is too generic of a term to bipedal creatures, call them entities.


The argument is insane, misleading, and dangerous.


Now since you've admitted that saying Dark isn't racist and has no racist connotation, then you've just admitted there is nothing wrong with the term, and therefore is completely okay to use.

Thank you for at least admitting it.

DMO will be back.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by ya.dingus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And therein is yet another problem with the argument. Anyone can interpret anything as negative, but that doesn't make them right.

Labeling problematic speech that wasn't problematic was one of the first steps the Leninist party took in controlling the public with setting up communism is Russia in the 20th century.

A little bit of history goes a long way in seeing the same ideological arguments reused today to the same misleading and dangerous effects.

Under your logic why call them Erudites, just call them humans. Scratch that, that's offensive to anyone not human, just call them people.

Scratch that, people is too generic of a term to bipedal creatures, call them entities.


The argument is insane, misleading, and dangerous.


Now since you've admitted that saying Dark isn't racist and has no racist connotation, then you've just admitted there is nothing wrong with the term, and therefore is completely okay to use.

Thank you for at least admitting it.

DMO will be back.

The JBS strongly opposed the Civil Rights Movement and its goals, including desegregation and ending discriminatory practices. They characterized the Civil Rights Movement as a communist plot to divide the country and promote subversion. They specifically opposed the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which mandated school desegregation, and busing for the purpose of school integration.

[ya.dingus]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The JBS strongly opposed the Civil Rights Movement and its goals, including desegregation and ending discriminatory practices. They characterized the Civil Rights Movement as a communist plot to divide the country and promote subversion. They specifically opposed the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which mandated school desegregation, and busing for the purpose of school integration.

Are you trying to make an argument that a completely voluntary guild system in a video game, should be tied to real life politics in a mandatory public school system?

Are you saying that there can't be a difference between the lore in a fantasy game and real life as well?


Is your intention in your writing saying you have difficulty separating a fantasy world base on McQuaid and friends DND campaign settings over the years from actual real life?

Please explain.