|
IMO you'd get better input on this topic from GBS.
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
You should have listened to me, OP. You've fallen deep into the well of sanctimonious white self-hatred that is D&D and there is no escape now except to drown yourself, or to admit your unworthiness and pray forgiveness from black jesus because if it's white it can't be right. Good luck goon.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Having some perspective on the world isn't self-hatred. It's the part where that perspective is extremely skewed and promotes self hatred. GBS has a much better read on the world than D&D.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Hmmm, so you're saying that white people who work for racial equality hate themselves? Nah what I'm saying is that's not what's going on here. Less words: lolD&D.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If you haven't completely run off in shame yet, OP, I'd like you to take a look at this article, because you're falling into the biggest trap for white people - when confronted with a conversation about racism that isn't sufficiently cushioned and tip-toey for your taste, you make it all about you, you, you and how dare they talk about a society-wide centuries-old legacy of racism without specifically making exceptions for you? Yes, "not all white people are like that", but if you're so self-centered and clueless that you have to butt into a conversation about racism to yell about how not-racist you personally are, you probably are "like that" even if you don't realize it. Sounds like a lot of "those awful people who don't buy into my world view are ruining our online circle jerk they should be quiet and let the Pure People talk". If she wants to have safe conversations about racism between her white self and her white friends where they define the acceptable boundaries she shouldn't do it on Facebook or wherever.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
The Mash posted:When a campaign or a discussion only mentions women, it is a fair point that someone says "but some of the victims are men too!". What the article seems to be referring to are conversations that stray into hateful generalizations about men, white people, or white men, that other participants in the public forum hosting the conversation have a problem with. From The article quote:It’s practically a Law Of The Internet that when a Person of Color says something about racism, at least one white person will barge into the conversation to assure everyone that ‘not all white people are like that.’ Bonus points if they go on to explain that making negative generalizations about white people is ‘racist’ (spoiler: it’s not). The author conflates people talking about their personal experiences of racism with people hating on white people. One of those is having a conversation about racism and the other is engaging in racism and if the author doesn't want her racist conversations interrupted she shouldn't hold them in public fora.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Edit: Seriously though, all the guy said was that he wanted to do his job without white people crowding out his clients' questions with ignorant poo poo about "Where's the White Jobs Program" (America. The White Jobs Program is called America), and you're calling him a race traitor. What the hell. I don't think he's American.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Which poster do you mean? The Mash
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Whoa whoa that's a heavy word, I never called anyone a racist. Why are you so obsessed with that word? Maybe you're the real one-upper. Nobody called anyone a race traitor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But white men expect that anytime a minority talks about race or gender, they need to acknowledge his privilege and patiently go over the basics inch by inch like they have with dozens of other ignorant white men before him, or else they're "reverse racist". Like the author of that earlier article you're conflating different kinds of conversations. People talking about their experiences of their race or gender and their issues surrounding those things is one kind of conversation. People making negative generalizations about another race or gender is another kind of conversation. The two are not the same and they don't generate the same responses, so we shouldn't lump all of that together. It's the latter that gets people jumping in with #notallwhatever because they feel offended or attacked. It's really not an unreasonable response unless you're butting into someone's explicitly private conversation to do it. If someone started in with "all gay people <something>" and then told you to pat yourself on the head and shut up if it didn't apply to you specifically you'd have a lot to say about that. It's the same thing. edit: missing word. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's really weird that you're sticking to this argument because it's dependent on not properly reading or understanding the article in question You're a cat dude what do you know about anything. Also, the article is about people butting into the author's facebook conversations or what have you when they stray toward negative generalizations of white people, and how they should check their privilege and shouldn't criticize and blah blah. Basically people disagree with inflammatory things she says in public and she wishes they wouldn't do that. JUSTICE!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I honestly think that the issue is less that people like you are bad or racist or something and more that you just have a really terrible imagination. Seriously, it isn't difficult to imagine why it would be extremely obnoxious for a group that doesn't face anything approaching the level of discrimination and other problems you face as a result of your race/gender/whatever to keep chiming in about their own feelings. I've spent a lot of time as an expat. There are complaints and issues and experiences that expats have that native people won't understand and probably can't. It doesn't speak badly of them. They just don't have the frame of reference to empathize and even if they're trying it doesn't really work. And when expats are getting a little bitter and being a little unfair (which happens. It's a natural kind of response to frustration) people can get pissed and defensive and that's even more irritating when you're already feeling sorry for yourself. Sometimes you just do not want to hear it from someone who doesn't understand, or you don't want to explain things for the Nth time to someone who isn't going to get it. I get that. However, that poo poo (complaining by expats) can get really offensive and unfair and it's on the people who want their safe place to let loose to make sure they're doing it in a friendly forum and not out in public where other people are going to get the wrong idea. I don't think there's a right to throw bile in peoples faces and expect them not to have anything to say about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So basically you're saying that minorities should watch their tone and that it's wrong for them to act angry and okay for others to intrude in their discourse because they're offended (I'm only saying this rhetorically since this actually is exactly what you're saying). Well, let's not conflate things. ITT and in the article we're talking about white people talking at other white people about things they by definition don't really understand and can't relate to, all conducted out in public. In what sense one can intrude on a public shouting match and who has a right to participate given that almost everyone involved is well off and white seem like questions worth considering before getting indignant about minorities and their discourse. Ytlaya posted:Why is it that you prioritize this when choosing to take place in these discussions? Because D&D loses any kind of filter when these discussions come up and the pertinent response IMO when we seriously start talking about a proposition like "Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?" is "have you guys lost all sense of perspective?". If we were having serious chat I expect we'd agree on a lot more than we disagree on. Not everything, but a lot of things. edit: People can use whatever tone they want to for whatever reasons they want to. I'm not passing judgement - I'm saying no one is entitled to a sympathetic listener or to "own" a conversation held in public. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The original question, if I remember the OP correctly, was asked by a black person, who is not even a member of D&D. It's pretty weird to accuse a subforum of having no sense of perspective when the thread you're complaining about was started by a guy saying "Hey D&D, why might my black friend think this and how should I respond to him?" Sorry that people were explaining his friend's perspective, I guess you'd prefer it if we just said "lol no, racism is over". People have advanced arguments that the prison system established by whites is little better than slavery itself, or should we only look at things with the perspective of a middle-class white man? Nobody posting ITT knows his friend's perspective or is in a position to explain it. I guess I would have expected more "Huh. That sounds sort of unhinged maybe tell your friend that sounds a little nuts." than "let me tell you why our modern institutions are JUST LIKE SLAVERY" which seems to overlook several important differences and avoid acknowledging that maybe society made some progress at some point. Like, it's ok to be against racism and acknowledge that it's still a thing and also acknowledge that we are really loving far from chattel slavery in 2014.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 21:22
|
|