Yes, MORE on religion and role playing

[Ron Edwards]

John's right.

Let's split those two topics into separate threads (start'em, whoever's interested) and let this one be done at this point.

Best,
Ron

[S'mon]

Okay, I'm quite explicitly not saying that an RPG rule text should state "Thou shalt not have strong women" to reinforce conventions, just they should state the conventions, not assume that "everyone knows them."

That way, you know what's an assumption of the setting that may or not be true in specific cases, which are hard-and-fast demands of the setting. Which leads to empowerment of players, not vague oppression by the implied gender roles rife in the rules.

That seems reasonable.  :)

[contracycle]

In fact, I find taking legitimate important issues like racism and sexism and homophobia and trying to search for and claim evidence for them everywhere, including in adolescent RPG munchkin fantasy characters...simply cheapens the whole thing, and makes it much easier for nay sayers to point and say "see how ridiculous those people are".

And I regard dismissing such reports as apologetics for the behaviour identified, always ready with some spurious projection of how these folke are "seeing it everwhere", making a spurious appeal to a spychological pathology in order to undermine the claim.  Classic ad hominem tactic.

Being a horrible person is being a horrible person. Just because the target of your behavior feels that they belong to a "disempowered group" doesn't suddenly make you an -ist. You're still just a horrible person being horrible.

How very convenient.  So there is no such thing as racism, just horroibleness, and therefore there is no problem that needs to be resolved.  After all, academic research into discrimination cannot possibly be describing anything that really, actually exists.

[contracycle]

Habits versus prejudices.
If I do something that offends you, even if I do it repeatedly, I need to be told that my habits are offensive, and given the opportunity to attempt to change them. If I'm doing something for reasons that offend you, that's different.

Exactly so.  And if the habit is to perpetuate a racist stereotype, whether carried out maliciously or unconsciously it is offensive and should be tackled.  Therefore, the "debate" about whether or not X was MEANT in a deliberately offensive manner are totally irrelevant - the tpoic would be raised regarldess of the intent, because of the behaviour.

[Valamir]

So there is no such thing as racism, just horroibleness, and therefore there is no problem that needs to be resolved.

Right.  If an action directed at a minority is horrible and should be stopped, then that same action directed at a member of the majority is equally horrible and should be equally stopped.  The important thing here is the horrible behavior.  "Racism" is nothing more than some group recognizing that horrible behavior spills onto their group more often than it spills onto another group.  There is absolutely no way that this is a "problem that can be resolved".  Only time and the passing of generations can reform public sentiment.  You can't legislate morality and you can't legislate away hate.

What you can do, is make sure that the laws that protect the majority are evenly applied to all.  Remove the overt, government sponsored, institutionalized aspects of oppression and then wait.  As disparate groups live and work and play together without legislative obstacles (like enforced segregation,) standing between them, then each generation will draw closer together.

It is a long process but too many people are impatient and want to experience "perfect equality" today.  It is my observation, however, that dwelling on these issues down to the minutia serves less to "resolve" them and more to highlight the differences between people, build walls around communities, and stir up resentment.  There comes a point where the more you push against the injustice, the slower the injustice will change.

[contracycle]

Right.  If an action directed at a minority is horrible and should be stopped, then that same action directed at a member of the majority is equally horrible and should be equally stopped.  The important thing here is the horrible behavior.  "Racism" is nothing more than some group recognizing that horrible behavior spills onto their group more often than it spills onto another group.  There is absolutely no way that this is a "problem that can be resolved".  Only time and the passing of generations can reform public sentiment.  You can't legislate morality and you can't legislate away hate.

I vehemently disagree.  Racism is more than just individually horrible behaviour, becuase it is articulated in a broad sociaety, as part of that societies values.  If a society imposes a segregationist law, then it is insufficient to write this off to horrbleness; for one thing, this means that you have to then brand this whole state as "horrible".  Is that even plausible, that like Gomorrah or wherever it was, not one good person could be found in the whole state?

Secondly, you have to deal with the fact that someone exhibiting such "horribleness" is seldom unsiversally horrible.  I'd have to admit, some of the best people I've know were racist scum; how to reconcile this phenomenon?  It all smacks too much  of the portestant obsession with personal morality to me; the issue is the way society works, not naming and shaming the bad apples.  A law that obliges certain people to sit at the back of the bus can be abolished without indicting anyone of Thought Crime, and an attempt to do so is not an attempt to denigrate the personal moral purity of the people who introduced it in the first place.

And this is why it is an Issue when a work of art is produced and released into the public domain.  The artist frankly has no alternative but to decide whether or not they will align themselves with or against the prevailing sentiment, because any adressing of the human condition for the local audience will have to touch upon it.

What you can do, is make sure that the laws that protect the majority are evenly applied to all.  Remove the overt, government sponsored, institutionalized aspects of oppression and then wait.  As disparate groups live and work and play together without legislative obstacles (like enforced segregation,) standing between them, then each generation will draw closer together.

By no means; I regard this as Utopian pie in the sky, as if all you have to do is change the rules and everyone magically toes the line.  Becuase although the state may impose certain restrictions and limitatyions, these are implemented with the consent and collusion of the real people on the ground.  Certainly, tackling institutional discrimination is absolutely necessary, and it certainly is not the case that discriminatory legislation can simply be left in place and everyone can agree to "move on"; but this only removes the most formal and overt forms of discrimination and leaves unaddressed how the spirit, rather than the letter of the law, will be interpreted.  And it is in that arena that the role of the artist in confronting an audience, of the political agitator with a reformist agenda, of the oppressed in asserting their equality, are the mechanisms by which the problem can be addressed.

It is a long process but too many people are impatient and want to experience "perfect equality" today.  It is my observation, however, that dwelling on these issues down to the minutia serves less to "resolve" them and more to highlight the differences between people, build walls around communities, and stir up resentment.  There comes a point where the more you push against the injustice, the slower the injustice will change.

Which it seems to me is what the prevailing orthodoxy always claims in an effort to undermine the reformers and to wish them out of existance.  It is an attack on the methodology because the goals are unchallangeable, even though what this "solution" proposes is that efforts to to change the prevailing sentiment and social forms should be suspended - i.e., the situation of disparity should be preserved.  Needless to say, I consider this proposition to be wholly unacceptable and hopelessly naive; society is composed of individuals and their actions, and it is only by taking these issues on directly and making the conscious effort to solve them that any progress will be made.

I think racism and sexism definitely exist as a discrete phenomenon; writing them off as horribleness neither explicates nor proposes a resolution of the situation, it merely attempts to normalise it.

[Librisia]

This is simply a quick update.  I'm currently in the middle of Edwards' article, and am formulating a GNS descriptor of why I think women aren't as attracted to the hobby as men - though GNS isn't the only part of my hypothesis.  I'll probably be able to post tomorrow or the day after (Saturday or Sunday in the U.S.)

I will reiterate something that was said on the Feminsit Game Design thread - how nice it is to see fellow hobbyists tackling these issues - not just feminism.

Back to you with a revised hypothesis,

Krista
(p.s. Can someone tell me how to do that 'link to the other thread' thing?  Html just ain't my cup o' tea)

[Valamir]

I'm having trouble reconciling statements like:

Racism is more than just individually horrible behaviour, becuase it is articulated in a broad sociaety, as part of that societies values.

and

the issue is the way society works,

with

society is composed of individuals and their actions

You seem willing to use "society" as a big homogenous thing when it suits you to say that racism is not simply individuals being horrible to each other, and then turn around and say no, you have to tackle each individual seperately when it suits you to promote that agenda.

You can't have it both ways.  You can't argue its a "societal problem" when someone points out that the solution lies with individuals, and then argue its an "individual problem" when someone proposes societal changes.

Racism is either some thing that exists in a level above the individual, or its some thing that resides within the individual.  I believe it resides in the individual and is a combination of personal belief, misinformation, and ignorance of other peoples.

These are not things that can be changed by proselytising.  These are things that are changed when people live and work and play side by side.  

If a society imposes a segregationist law, then it is insufficient to write this off to horrbleness; for one thing, this means that you have to then brand this whole state as "horrible".  Is that even plausible, that like Gomorrah or wherever it was, not one good person could be found in the whole state?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.  If such a law gets passed a law than the people who passed it were wrong, and the people who allowed it to be passed were wrong.  Here again you are throwing around "society" as if its some entity that has its own existance.

As I made  a point of saying that it is exactly this kind of institutionalized barrier that we *should* work to bring down.

But the other side of it is equally wrong.  If a law passed to restrict the rights of a minority in favor of the majority is wrong, than a law passed to restrict the rights of a majority in favor of a minority is equally wrong.

Secondly, you have to deal with the fact that someone exhibiting such "horribleness" is seldom unsiversally horrible.  I'd have to admit, some of the best people I've know were racist scum; how to reconcile this phenomenon?

A statement of such obviousness I'm uncertain what your point is.

By no means; I regard this as Utopian pie in the sky, as if all you have to do is change the rules and everyone magically toes the line.

Hardly.  People don't magically change.  That's my entire point.  They aren't going to magically change when someone passes a civil rights law.  They aren't going to magically change when someone calls them a racist.  They aren't going to magically change when activists hold rallies and give speeches.  They aren't going to magically change when a minority family moves in next door.

There is absolutely nothing you can do to make them change.  The only thing you can do is make sure the laws don't favor anyone over any one else and that those laws get equitably applied.  After that, the change can only come at the individual level over the course of time...even, as I say, generations.

even though what this "solution" proposes is that efforts to to change the prevailing sentiment and social forms should be suspended - i.e., the situation of disparity should be preserved.  

Completely incorrect...and rather insulting actually.

Take for an example a typical ethnically diverse apartment complex here in America.  Most of the people who live there are in their 30, 40s, 50s, and 60s.  Their formative years were the 1940 to 1970s.  As a general rule (broadbrushed to be sure) that complex is going to be self segregating.  The Indian families will interact with the Indian families, the Chinese with the Chinese, the Blacks with the Blacks, Whites with Whites, and so on.

Now drive past the local elementary school, where you see an entire rainbow of young children, playing, laughing, eating, and learning together.  

Fast forward 30 years when its those children living in the ethnically diverse apartment complex.  I would argue that the degree of self segregation in that complex at that time will have declined dramatically.  These people grew up in an ethnically mixed environment.  They are more comfortable with other cultures traditions and mores.  They will interact with each other more commonly and more deeply on average then preceding generations have.

And it is in that way that racism will disappear.  Not by passing laws swinging the pendulum too far the other way.  Not by ongoing in your face activism.  Not by continually pointing out every little piece of anything that may be offensive to some group.  And not by pointing fingers and labeling this person or that work "racism".

You can call that naive if you want.  I call it inevitable.  There is no way that todays racists are going to be able to stop it.  The melting pot will do the job better than any number of marches or speeches or laws ever could as long as we give it time to work.  Its working.  It has been working.  It continues to work.  We just need to recognize that and avoid doing things that will slow the process down.  And by that I mean things that divide and seperate and stir up resentment.  

The first generation will hate, the second generation will ignore, the third generation will embrace.  As long as there aren't barriers in place to stop it, that's the way its always been.

[C. Edwards]

I agree wholeheartedly, Ralph.

There is absolutely nothing you can do to make them change. The only thing you can do is make sure the laws don't favor anyone over any one else and that those laws get equitably applied. After that, the change can only come at the individual level over the course of time...even, as I say, generations.

I'd just like to point out that this doesn't disclude taking action in order to make sure laws and rights are instituted equally, such as women's right to vote.

Personally, I find the belief that society, or any particular individual, can be forced into a non-prejudiced stance to be fairly naive. That kind of change is a slow, naturally occuring process, as Ralph points out. What we CAN do is what Ralph already suggests. Insure that our laws and rights are equitable and enforced in an even handed manner.

-Chris

[james_west]

Now drive past the local elementary school, where you see an entire rainbow of young children, playing, laughing, eating, and learning together.

As an interesting aside, I recall reading recently that youth gangs in LA are far less racially segregated than they used to be (gangs are apparently becoming less based on race). Unfortunately, can't reference that for you.

However, this thread does seem to have acquired massive drift...

- James

[contracycle]

You seem willing to use "society" as a big homogenous thing when it suits you to say that racism is not simply individuals being horrible to each other, and then turn around and say no, you have to tackle each individual seperately when it suits you to promote that agenda.

Obviously.  You tackle crime by making it illegal publicly and generally, and the practical measure is reserved for those who actually commit it.  

You can't have it both ways.  You can't argue its a "societal problem" when someone points out that the solution lies with individuals, and then argue its an "individual problem" when someone proposes societal changes.

I did't exactly - the contraduction between tyhe individual and nsociety is illusory, because of course society is composed of lots of individuals.  Any social measure proposed necessarily implies ehavrioural changes on the part of individuals - but proposing change on the part of individuals does not necessarily imply a change by society.  The second form - moralism and condemnation - is singularly ineffective at solving the social level problem.

Racism is either some thing that exists in a level above the individual, or its some thing that resides within the individual.  I believe it resides in the individual and is a combination of personal belief, misinformation, and ignorance of other peoples.

OK, I think 90% plus is social, mixed with private opportunism.  I mention again the remarkable coherence with which children follow the same religion as there parents - whither, then, "personal belief"?  People do not appear in a vacuum and their personal beliefs are almost always prior social constructs.

These are not things that can be changed by proselytising.  These are things that are changed when people live and work and play side by side.  

I think that answer is too easy; in Ireland the catholic and protestant communities live side by side, but all that happened was a greater or lesser degree of covert segregation.  People knew which were the catholic schools and which the protestant schools; non-mixing is/was "voluntary".  And YET at the broad level everyone could agree that the viuolence was endemic and it had to stop.  I agree the principle is sound, but it takes much more than just proximity - it also takes argument.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.  If such a law gets passed a law than the people who passed it were wrong, and the people who allowed it to be passed were wrong.  Here again you are throwing around "society" as if its some entity that has its own existance.

Society does have its own existance at certain levels - we all belong to a particular state and carry that states passport.  "There is no such thing as society" is IMO discredited Thatcherite dogma.

But what I was getting as it that it is insufficient and implausibvle to say they were wrong, or more accurately, just universally horrible.  It defies rationality IMO to suggest that a whole demographic were all universally moral failures just because they disagree with me about a particular issue, no matter how committed to it I am.  It seems to me much more likely that within those millions are rational and thoughtful people; to apply the idea that they are all personally horrible is just another form of typological argument, just usually based on nationality rather than ethnicity.  Its even directly contradictory to the statement that there is no such thing as society.  Furthermore, its useless as a practical criticism, because the counter-argument is so easy to make: they just turn round and call me wrong and morally bankrupt.

But the other side of it is equally wrong.  If a law passed to restrict the rights of a minority in favor of the majority is wrong, than a law passed to restrict the rights of a majority in favor of a minority is equally wrong.

Whereupon I say "Yes, thats true, but affirmative action is not such a law" - that being the practical solution this argument (which I consider intellectually dishonest) is almost always directed at.

Hardly.  People don't magically change.  That's my entire point.  They aren't going to magically change when someone passes a civil rights law.  They aren't going to magically change when someone calls them a racist.  They aren't going to magically change when activists hold rallies and give speeches.  They aren't going to magically change when a minority family moves in next door.

Agreed.  But then I said from then outset, the point is to chnage the behaviour, not to impose Thought Control.  I don't care WHAT they think as long as they do not behave in a discriminatory manner.  When someone passes a civil rights law, racists do not magically change, but now if they act in a racist manner in violation of the law, they can be arrested, tried and sentenced.

As I tried to convey, making that argument which can cause minds to change is the realm of politics and art.

There is absolutely nothing you can do to make them change.  The only thing you can do is make sure the laws don't favor anyone over any one else and that those laws get equitably applied.  After that, the change can only come at the individual level over the course of time...even, as I say, generations.

Your first part of the above implies that such is probable or plausible or advocated, which I refute.  The second I think is wholly insufficient.  If change can only come over generations, and we do not change the way the oiur society is ordered, then we are directly saying, whether we like it or not, that those who suffer now will have to continue to suffer.  To my mind, that is not adequate, but even worse: its not my consent you have to win, but that of those who suffer.

Completely incorrect...and rather insulting actually.

I've made some remarks above which I would like to discuss under this remark.  OK, I acknowledge that you found that insulting, and my find some remarks above further insulting; but I ask that you acknowledge from my perspective that the suggestion for example that anti-racist law is itself racist is something I take as insulting, or the statement that highlighting these abuses serves only to drive them deeper.  

And this brings me back to one of my previous remarks - even when I see people behaving in a manner I feel is racist, or pandering to or defending or propogating racism or sexism, I do not feel it necessary or or useful to damn the person and all their works as "horrible".  I can stake a step back from that and ask about the context and compare it to other things by this person and develop from there an opinion on whether they are just horrible IMO or merely mistaken.  Approaching the problem as a social, ideological one is IMO the more constructive method than pious indignation.

Now drive past the local elementary school, where you see an entire rainbow of young children, playing, laughing, eating, and learning together.  

This, actually, I take as one of the primary indicators that racism is a social ideology rather than any naturally emerging phenomenon.  As I understand it, children seldom show much interest in these details; but often, even children who behaved in this manner behave in a racist manner as adults.  I contend that this indicates that behaviour is a socialised one, a trained one, and that a society can unlearn it if it chooses to do so.  The first step to doing that however means: not propagating the existing material that currently teaches it.

Which, I believe, was rather the issue of the original point - whether or not RPG's are challenging or propagating.  I present the chainmail bikini as Exhibit A.

[Valamir]

If change can only come over generations, and we do not change the way the oiur society is ordered, then we are directly saying, whether we like it or not, that those who suffer now will have to continue to suffer.

That's what I don't understand about your posts.  I am entirely in agreement with the concept here.  I've not said that we "shouldn't change the way our society is ordered".  The repeal of segregation laws changed the way society was ordered.  The right to vote changed the way society was ordered.  The Equal Opportunity and Equal Housing Acts changed the way society was ordered.  These are all good changes.  Its only when changes like this are in place, that the generational forces I discussed have a chance to work.

that anti-racist law is itself racist is something I take as insulting, or the statement that highlighting these abuses serves only to drive them deeper.

That stems largely from your own assumptions I'm afraid.  I'll give you an example of the sort of "equality promoting" law I find abhorrant.

Back when I was in college I was witness to a number of bar fights (in or out of a bar, you know the kind of confrontations I'm talking about).  Young testosterone charged males + alcohol leads to such things fairly regularly.  On about my junior year the school issued a new set of "anti hate crime" rules in conjunction with the local legislature.  Later that year I got to see the rule in action.

I was out and a guy a kind of knew got into a typical wrestling and punching brawl with another guy.  The usual, they were both drunk, being jerks and started swinging.  Ordinarily this would have lead to an assault charge, largely trivial since the fight was mutual, perhaps a disturbing the piece misdemeanor and maybe a disciplinary notice from the school.

Afterwards, however, it was discovered that the other guy in the fight was homosexual.  I was there.  There was no gay bashing involved in the fight.  It was just a straight up stupid drunk guy ego thing.  But thanks to the new laws any hetero on homo assault was automatically upgraded to a hate crime.  The guy got 30 days in jail and expelled.

This is what I detest.  If he'd beaten the snot out of a straight white guy the charges would have been minimal.  But because the other guy happened to be gay (or black, or jewish, or asian, or any of the other groups "protected" by this law) the punishment was much worse.  This is simply wrong, period; and is the kind of thing that simply causes resentment which then negatively impacts legitimate race related legislation.

And this brings me back to one of my previous remarks - even when I see people behaving in a manner I feel is racist, or pandering to or defending or propogating racism or sexism, I do not feel it necessary or or useful to damn the person and all their works as "horrible". I can stake a step back from that and ask about the context and compare it to other things by this person and develop from there an opinion on whether they are just horrible IMO or merely mistaken. Approaching the problem as a social, ideological one is IMO the more constructive method than pious indignation.

And that is because you are a thoughtful reflective person (as are all the participants in this thread) which is why we've had this discussion without it deteriorating into something ugly.  But that makes you a minority also.  Because the kind of behavior you describe is NOT the type of behavior typical to discussing issues of bigotry in the general populace.

I contend that this indicates that behaviour is a socialised one, a trained one, and that a society can unlearn it if it chooses to do so. The first step to doing that however means: not propagating the existing material that currently teaches it.

Of course, most behavior is taught.  But the message of tolerance and acceptance is already being widely disseminated, its not like the civil rights movement is still struggling to be heard.  I disagree with your conclusion about propating such material.  I fully believe that its perfectly fine (in fact, I'm tempted to say its a good idea) to allow the "material that currently teaches it" to propagate, for three reasons.

1) Because while such material is dangerous when viewed in a vacuum as the only source people are exposed to, when forced to stand up side by side with more rational material it is more easily seen for ridiculous nonsense that it is.  Racist propaganda shouldn't be rooted out and burned.  It should be set side by side with everything else so people can see first hand how stupid it is.

2) Because censureship is probably the most insidious evil a government can allow to be committed on its people.  And institutionalized peer pressure to cease and desist certain behavior is just another form of censureship.  In fact, in some ways its a worse form of censureship because its really easy to think you're doing the right thing while doing it.

3) Because there is a point where raising public awareness about problems and issues stops being informative and eye opening and starts being irritating;like waving a red flag in front of a bull.  All social interaction is an ongoing tacit negotiation between parties.  Pissing the other guy off when you're trying to get them to see things your way is just counterproductive.  I don't think you and I really disagree on this, rather I think we probably have different ideas of where that line is and how frequently issues of embedded bigotry need to be raised and addressed and how frequently they should be allowed to slide so as to give people time to figure out the answer on their own without pissing them off and building resistance to the cause you're trying to promote.

To bring this back to the point where I started voiceing my frustration on this thread, the idea of going back to point fingers (damning fingers or not) at elements found in roleplaying games (especially when most of those elements are a reach to begin with) is for me well on the "unnecessary" side of that line.

[Librisia]

Mr. Mazza, I think the things that might have offended you here regarding role playing could be symptomatic of the, "I'm tired of being criticized" reaction.  This is an understandable, human reaction.  Many of us have it regarding any kind of prejudice when we are considered a member of the grop doing the oppressing.  

I used to be freaked out about the possiblity about being considered racist.  Then I had a personal experience that made me realize I COULD NOT GET AWAY FROM MY RACIST TENDENCIES.  That experience made me own my own racism.  As a result, I've stopped taking things personally when people begin to debate the topic of racism, and I am able to better empathize with and understand their point of view, even when the people talking say things that you would consider too "far out."  I am now able to be more vigilant about my unthinking racist attitudes.  Accepting my racism, and being willing to acknowledge it has made me (I hope) less racist.  Whether you or anyone else on this list might have such an experience regarding sexism is not for me to say or accomplish.

I do not think it is either righteous or justified for you to try to stop people from criticizing the patterns of racism/sexism/homophobia that DO exist in the hobby.  I read what you were doing as an attempt to shut down the argument by saying discussion you find outrageous actually harms the goals of the debate.   You don't have to agree with the examples given or find the debate valuable, but talking about such things might be helpful or enlightening to someone who had never thought about them before.  

To sum up: While each of the examples of sexism in gaming given here may not indicate intentional sexism/misogyny on anyone's part, the TOTAL PATTERN of these things indicates that those stereotypes of women are alive and well in the hobby.  This is one of the reasons I surmised in the paper that women are a minority in gaming.  The messages they get from game book texts and the play of other players can turn them off because it is a message that, at the least can make a woman uncomfortable and at worst can make her feel that others consider her less human.

Let me clarify what I mean by the play of other players.  It can be an overtly hostile group like the one I described elsewhere that I experienced.  It can also mean that the players, who are otherwise friends, might perpetuate harmful stereotypes *without even realizing it* during the course of play, either through the scenario being run or through the way their characters deal with female npcs or pcs in the game.  My point is that these things can turn women off to gaming, and so they are staying away from the hobby in droves.

These aren't the only reasons, as I'll explain when I've finished working up my revised hypothesis.

Krista

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

As someone deeply interested in both gaming and social justice, I'm going to point out that the issues here are way up on the hierarchy, and just as rules and techniques cannot fix a broken social contract, neither can the game fix the social issues.  

As designers, we CAN portray different ethnicities and genders in a fair, inclusive, positive, and most importantly, well rounded manner.  We CAN highlight the issues of social injustice through the conflicts presented in our games.  We CANNOT ever make sure that someone "gets it", just as any playwright, author, or director cannot make sure that anyone "gets" a movie.  In the end they either agree, disagree, understand, or fail to understand.

I agree that social issues pour into our gaming.  Although I think we're overstepping the scope of what a game can do.  I think if we focus more on what actually is within our ability, we will produce some solid results.

Chris

PS- For anyone interested in something which does work very well on the social level of increasing awareness:  

http://www.peoplesinstitutewest.org/pages/381387/

[C. Edwards]

Mr. Mazza, I think the things that might have offended you here regarding role playing could be symptomatic of the, "I'm tired of being criticized" reaction. This is an understandable, human reaction. Many of us have it regarding any kind of prejudice when we are considered a member of the grop doing the oppressing.

So, nothing Ralph has said has any relevance because he doesn't belong to any group you consider to be a "victim"?

I do not think it is either righteous or justified for you to try to stop people from criticizing the patterns of racism/sexism/homophobia that DO exist in the hobby. I read what you were doing as an attempt to shut down the argument by saying discussion you find outrageous actually harms the goals of the debate. You don't have to agree with the examples given or find the debate valuable, but talking about such things might be helpful or enlightening to someone who had never thought about them before.

Now nothing he's said is relevant because he doesn't agree with you?

This may come as a surprise to you, but without opposing opinion what you have is not actually a debate, it's a love-in where everyone gives each other hugs and kudos for agreeing with one another. That's the most harmful situation I can imagine if you actually want to accomplish such important goals.

People who are in agreement for the overall need for change are going to disagree on methodology, and that's all right, but saying that a dissenting opinion renders the speaker irrelevant and harmful is complete nonsense.

-Chris