Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
Inspired by this post about Vampire The Masquerade
Out of couriosity: I have never played the game, so... is the game actually unplayable if you decide to be intolerant against one or more of these? (As in: Is the tolerance and representation part of the core mechanics or is this just meant as a statement?)
Everything from the rules of the game to the GM guide to the pre written game settings are written with the assumption that players and the gm will be respectful and kind, but no you could absolutely try to play the game about connection-seeking queers fighting oppression and finding family as a bigot
Even though I do not have a problem with treating the things mentioned with respect, something about this text irritates me, but I can't put my finger on it. Which feels really weird because I don't like the feeling of something being off even though I can't spot anything that actually bothers me.
Every time I see stuff like this I instantly think of:
Like, congrats, it's nice to pat yourself on the back and all but...
I think it enforces itself by being off-putting to bigots. How many of them are playing it "incorrectly" to own the libs rather than just playing something they perceive as less hostile?
none, because the title and cover art alone would put them off.
This one seems a little more obvious.
the bigots wanting to play "thirsty sword lesbians" are going to be so upset when they read this
You have no idea! They are absolutely seething at being called out like this, even though the game is basically “Conservatives stay away, the RPG”. I’ve ended up in quite a few Reddit slapfights over it.
As far as I can tell, what drives them nuts is the “fascists and bigots” bit. Basically they apparently self-identify as bigots and fascists, but deeply resent anyone else doing so.
even though the game is basically “Conservatives stay away, the RPG”. I’ve ended up in quite a few Reddit slapfights over it.
This seems frustratingly common. Like fascists who love Rage Against the Machine because they're functionally illiterate and fail to realize the music is antithetical to their worldview.
The good old "when did RATM went all political"
You'd be surprised at how many people were up in arms about it.
If they could read.
It does feel like pandering but hey, at least they're explicit about it.
They lost me at the last point tbh. I don't blame anyone for not knowing and you shouldn't blame me for not learning about something that hasn't affected me.
I believe what they are referring to is that it's not any individuals responsibility to ensure that any other individuals knowledge of their marginalization is complete. That's not saying that individuals can't do it, nor that they shouldn't call attention to specific issues as effect them at that time. It's saying that they are not responsible to do the work of teaching someone that which they should learn themselves once the issue has been raised. To do otherwise often feels like the person has to justify their existence and struggles to anyone who asks. That's an unreasonable load for the marginalized person to carry.
So not blame, just where the burthen of learning falls once an issue comes up.
I wholly don't understand it. If one brings up an issue it kind of is up to the person to explain why it is an issue, no? I'd just tell ya I'm part of a marginalised group? Like, I'm the US version of "white", rich enough to afford a vacation a year and a house, cishet. My marginalization is not brought up on those bullet points so you'd have to go digging down my comments to find it. Like, how often do these issues get brought up?
Like, the person exists allright if they're in front of me but if they have an active problem they do have to make a case among the group, as otherwise it seems very easily weaponized.
As for the reason I'm a marginalised group, I got falsely accused of raping someone and that wholly destroyed my social life. I hope you have an understanding of why I'm very weary of these kind of systems.
What this is talking about would be if I were to now ask you questions about your marginalization and demanded answers. But since that is not relevant to our discussion here and because it's not your job to ensure that I am informed on any issues relating to your marginalization I wouldn't ask the questions in the first place. You shouldn't have to feel like you have to justify your existence to anybody who possess by and is curious.
People sometimes treat visible members of marginalized groups like they are information dispensers. That just because they are viable they are responsible for entertaining their curiousity. In specific instances where it's relevant and invited a discussion of their marginalization is fine. But it's is not the job of someone to ensure any person interested is told about whatever they want to ask.
It's your responsibility to learn, not their responsibility to teach.
It's not their responsibility to teach but it's also not my responsibility to keep abreast of all social developments. It's inappropriate to gatekeep due to someone's naive ignorance.
Picture this. Sitting at a table game and someone drops a term or phrase that I don't recognise. Am I going to run to the toilet and google that term? Or am I just gonna say 'yo, what's that mean?"
There's a world of difference between hearing a term you're not familiar with and saying something like, "I've never heard that before, would you mind telling me what it means?" and learning about someone's marginalization and asking them a bunch of questions about it. I'm guessing this rule is targeting the latter.
Personally, if I meet someone who is marginalized, I avoid talking about their marginalization unless they bring it up and are clearly interested in talking about it. If they don't want to be defined by it or be asked a bunch of questions about it, then that's their right.
How on earth did you stumble across a comment that is 5 days old?
No objection with your framing. In fact, I tend to agree. My disagreement was the narrow / binary lens applied by the previous commentor. Their perspective ('your responsibility to learn') is/was an extremely dismissive approach.
How on earth did you stumble across a comment that is 5 days old?
I'm only subscribed to like three communities so I see a lot of the same posts when I sort by subscribed.
We both agree that it's not all or nothing. It's unreasonable to say that asking a good faith question is always bad, just like it's unreasonable to demand someone answer questions about their marginalization. I was just pitching in my thoughts as to where the line is.
Hmm, yeah.
This shit that you're doing, right here? Nobody wants to deal with that.
also, found this from a tumblr post
My problem with “it’s not my job to educate you!” is that if you’re an activist then yes, it is your job, that’s part of what activism is. If you call yourself an activist but in the next breath refuse to offer education to those who are able to listen, your activism is performative/disingenuous at best and actively harmful at worst. Telling people to “google it” it not helpful when google has become increasingly unusable and bogged down with advertisements and unusable results - not to mention, not everyone can be expected to tell the difference between accurate sources and, say, dogwhistle-y propaganda messages, especially if they are new to leftism. You could be doing more to push them towards the right than to help them understand leftism, all because of “purity politics” or clique behaviors or superiority complexes or whatever it is that’s causing all these people to behave this way.
Not everyone is an activist though. And even those that are, they need down time sometimes. I get it's tough for those on the spectrum to understand, but in this context, let people at the table just play the fucking game.
Yeah I'm not reading all that. Google it.
We're talking about a fucking game, not an undergraduate ethics class.
These are about as useful as a Tumblr DNI.
It hurt the feelings of a bunch of bigots online when the sourcebook came out so I'd say it did some good work
The goal isn't to actually prevent those people from playing the game, obviously that's not possible. The goal is to piss them off so it's obvious to the other people they would be playing with that they are not fun or maybe safe to be around.
DNI in Spanish stands for Documento Nacional de Identidad so everytime i saw these I always have to take a double step, what are ya asking ID for?
Well, everyone is about to start asking for an ID on the web, it seems, so you might be about right soon
In retail it means "do not inventory" as in "don't count this as part of the store's inventory".
You are a little too comfortable telling people how to talk. I'm seeing that a lot these days.
When we tell people not to murder, we are telling them how to act. When we tell people not to be racist, we are telling people how to talk. Telling people not to do things is a normal thing to do. The content of what is being told is the important part.
Is there a particular part of the op that you find friction with?
That's some grade A virtue signaling. I bet they felt VERY smug about what they accomplished with this. I fucking hate people like this. What DARK shit are you hiding that you're constantly trying to convince people of your virtue?
A dark and evil desire for a more compassionate world free from bigots and fascists. There I said it.
Basic empathy and a desire to make the world a better place?
Lol no. These people rarely have empathy for anyone but themselves.
Exactly. White collar, upwardly mobile women (usually white) trying to accrue social credit for themselves to preen for other similarly minded women with no real desire to make anything materially better for anyone else.
Can't count the number of times I've had "allies" try to call me out for speaking about my own experience. Identity politics is a cancer.
Even though we usually talk about it in a derogatory way, virtue signaling is not inherently bad. A shirt that says "trans rights are human rights" is virtue signaling, but the performance is in itself beneficial to society, even if the wearer is only doing it to feel trendy and special.
What they accomplished with this is hostility to bigots who might otherwise have felt welcome.
I don't think they're actually accomplishing any of those things. I'd argue a shirt is a demonstration IRL of support, which can raise awareness or normalize support for a cause (although not super effectively). Things like this make the "bigots" you are pwning just write this off as the usual DEI bullshit that nobody likes while also turning off anyone without your EXACT strain of identitarian politics, even if they don't actually oppose any specific sentiment in the statement. It is literally counterproductive because it makes you (and your cause) look angry and mean and like the bully.
Who is it being mean towards or bullying? Who is it angry at?
People looking at the webpage this is on?
L take