Sorry, guys. That was uncool, downclassing the conversation like that. Condescension is no excuse for name-calling, however peeved I might be, or however in need of a beatdown some might get. By that point in the night I'd had a) quite enough of lines like 'limited view,' 'small picture,' 'you are mistaken, we are loaded with facts,' etc., and b) plenty too much to drink. Bad combo. Blew up a bit. My apologies.
Michael--I'm sorry if my rowdy language offended. Really. As to the rest, though, I can't fathom how you keep feeling like I'm attacking the character of everyone in the conversation, including yours. There is no 'you all' and 'me' in my mind, yet you and some others insist on speaking as 'we,' as if it's me vs. Forum. I'm just posing a question and furthering my viewpoint. The 'mein' thing...come on, dude. I've shown a real flair for name-calling; if I think you're a Nazi I'll just be rude and call you a Nazi, not embed some tepid insinuation in a contorted, barely-visible subtext. I'm German stock, Michael. I mix in German all the time for kicks when I'm getting colloquial or lippy. It's a street move. Call my wife 'frau,' love the word 'mensch,' etc. I guess given my mention of eugenics there's a resonance to pick up there; total unhappy accident.
As for the other thing, how on earth are you getting character attack out of it? It's a point. Several people in the conversation have rested on the point that different species have different attribute swings, and it should seem just as (potentially) racist to me that others exceed humans in, say, strength. This keeps coming up in various iterations of the 'since it's scientific in-game, the echoes of real-world history you're talking about are irrelevant' stance, which I don't find convincing. So, yeah, I think some are kidding themselves that intelligence and other human qualities--attributes, here--are equivalent in the equality game. That is a stance that is so wildly divorced from how things work on earth that I thought it was worth addressing. Intelligence isn't the only ingredient in a successful life, but it's damn sure the biggest one, especially species-wide. Sapiens sapiens didn't take the planet over because it was stronger or faster--and that was in the stone age. Now? A people with lesser average and peak intellect than humans are going to be ground to dust in a modern world, where economics, technology, sophisticated law and calculated decision-making are the coins of the realm. How I'm also saying 'you guys' are all Nazis there...bro, I don't get your offense. Again.
As for the condescension, other dudes that aren't most dudes, there's all kinds of ways to offend, undermine, attack and hold in contempt without using profanity. It's a pusillanimous brand of argumentation to pretend to wield the unshakeable truth, the silver-bullet fact, the tired-but-patient awareness of your opponent's 'limited comprehension.' Plenty of people here have challenged my assertion without getting aloof. I don't know how you do it in your town, but in mine, that kind of weak Mordred-style action gets the beat-down. I still haven't learned my lesson about the internet that you just let that kind of thing slide. I shoulda let it slide; I didn't. Calling you out by name may not have been internet etiquette, but it seemed *less* obnoxious than just veiling my complaints. (Michael, I didn't see you objecting to any of those dudes' low tactics. Is it because they came in service of what you identify as 'your (pl)' point?)
If you want to talk big picture, o ye dismissers, I'll invite you one more time to address the point I've been making from the beginning. Yes, I get the in-world justifications. Yes, I agree; there's no racist intent inside the world design. No, I don't think you guys are racist for defending the game. But the game is an art object. How close to real-world ills can an art object be before it can no longer pretend it has no political resonance? No amount of in-game argument can answer that question. Mythology-drenched dudes playing it can rock the 'yo, EARTHDAWN timeline' thing with ease, but to any eyes off the street, the design choices the game makes are *choices*, not just conveniently unrelated bits about different species. In my post that was removed, I made what I feel is an apt comparison: Picasso's Demoiselles D'Avignon. Does he get to claim there's nothing misogynist about it because the chicks, like, are all boxy and obviously not 'real' chicks? If there were an all-female species of, like, kobold, and they all had three breasts, and they all were a little dumber, but had higher Intuition at the expense of being more prone to emotional outbursts, and often wanted more money, and got a +1 to cleaning skills, do you really think any amount of in-game mythology would totally shield that species design from some raised eyebrows? I've laid that obviously ludicrous example out next to a description of how trolls work for some total non-nerd, no-fantasy or RPG-style friends, and in all six cases they've found the troll the more iffy of the two. I find that telling.
Not 'damning.' Just 'telling.' Makes me wonder. NOT about the evil intent of Tolkein, or Tom Dowd or any SR designers then or since. More about how art objects function and what their level of responsibility to the history of the world is. That's all, guys. Really. I think those are worthy, hard questions and I still don't know where I stand on them in the end. I know my gut is uncomfy, and that's about all I've asserted.
