Hey! So, sporadic posting! It happens! I’m going to stop making promises about being better about it because they will probably be lies.
So, as you may or may not have heard, I was involved in a round table over at The Walking Eye in which we discussed how identity and gaming interact with each other. The response has been really cocklewarmingly positive, but some comments on the podcast have me wanting to write out a longer response (mostly because they are things I wanted to talk about anyway). This won’t be particularly organized, just quotes and responses. As always, if you want to engage about what I’ve said here you’ve got the comments section.
If you don’t speak up about activity that offends you, especially if the other players weren’t even aware they were being offensive, then how could they ever know to be different? If I had been at that table and just discovered in this podcast why that lady never came back to the game, I would be devastated; both because I had caused offense and because I had been so judged without any chance to make amends or learn from my mistake.
I think that, on the one hand, calling people on their shit is helpful, particularly assuming good intentions on the part of the person who was doing something icky. On the other, I know that I personally don’t have the energy for it, be it online, with friends, or at a convention (as is the context this came up in the ‘cast) and, speaking from experience, it’s something of a risky endeavor in that it can result in anything from genuine contrition to, in some cases, ugly words and threats of violence. It’s like Schrödinger’s cat, but with hateful words instead of a dead feline.
So, yes, in a perfect world someone would say something shitty, someone would call them on it, and everyone would move on happily, but, to be a little cliché, this really isn’t a perfect world. Marginalized folks really aren’t under any obligation to educate the uninformed, even if (as was cited in the podcast) they’re doing something really fucked up like spouting imitation Chinese. (You’d think that not being okay would be a no-brainer, no?) As mentioned, it takes time and energy and I’m not always willing to expend those. (For a longer, more in-depth discussion of the topic, Alas! A Blog has reprinted a nice piece on the issue.)
Anyone who consults a dictionary will be aware that the word ‘rape’ has multiple different senses of which it can be used, and only a few of these senses have anything to do with forced sexual activity. To suggest that the word, when used in it’s other, perfectly valid senses, somehow trivializes forced sexual assault is not making any sort of political statement: it simply demonstrates that the person suggesting this is ignorant of the basic facts of the English language…
If the listener chooses to deliberately select, from the definitions offered by the dictionary, the one allows them to be offended, in preference to the other offered definitions and despite the alternative definition both making more sense and being inoffensive in the context of use, then this is a choice that I believe shows a lot more about the listener than about the person who used the word.
Alright, first off, I looked rape up on dictionary.com to contextualize this and approximately 1/3 of the definitions of rape provided (excluding botanical uses for obvious reasons) did not explicitly mention sexual violence. None of that 1/3 was offered as a primary definition. I feel like it’s a little disingenuous to say that one simply chooses to associate rape with sexual violence, that association has been around (based on some cursory googling) since the 15th century. On Google you hit rape as a botanical term (page three) before you hit a reference to it as general atrocities (Amazon result for The Rape of Nanking, page 6, although the Nanking Massacre had a heavy component of sexual violence [TW: graphic images, descriptions] , so even this is a little dubious), and I’m pretty sure that players aren’t talking about an annual tap root being done to their character/base/whatever. Further, I doubt when someone says “Oh man, I totally got raped in game” what they are actually trying to say is “Oh man, I was really seized forcefully/despoiled in game.” Let’s add to that the fact that it’s often explicitly sexualized (“I’m going to rape your ass…” etc etc etc) and, well, ick.
Bottom line, there are plenty of other words that you can use to convey the same message without tapping into the sexual imagery of rape, and plenty of words that won’t trigger folks.
Speaking of triggers!
Can we please stop using recently made-up terms like “triggers” that are only really in use within a very specific community? It’s called being sensitive about something. There’s nothing wrong with the word sensitive. I take offense at the thought that people need to be cuddled and protected like that. If you have an issue that you cannot bear to explore in play bring it up before you do so as a veil or a line. Expecting a similar social contract on a worldwide scale seems rather silly.
Setting aside the (what I read to be, at least) patronizing tone of the comment, I completely agree that a lines/veils discussion is really, really important to have and respect in game. I don’t think I ever called for an out-and-out ban on material that’s potentially triggering games, just that people should be aware of it. I disagree, however, that this is simply being sensitive and, further, that people at large see nothing wrong with being sensitive. I cannot count the number of times I’ve been told “Oh, you’re just being sensitive” when I’ve objected to something I found questionable. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the descriptor, it’s often used to write folks off and, as such, has become sort of a loaded word.
Now, on to triggers! Some cursory googling (I am using that word a lot today!) turns up “trigger” used as a term in discussions about mental health and trauma, particularly as a shortened form of the phrase “trauma trigger,” as early as the mid 90′s for a very, very long time. It’s by no means exclusive to the feminist community, and one of the wonders of the internet is the ability to research and clarify terminology so we can have discussions across semantic lines. I am a little surprised that someone would refer to having triggers as being sensitive to something, I feel like it may be due to a misunderstanding about what being triggered is. In my experience sensitivity doesn’t set off panic attacks or flashbacks. Saying that something is a trigger is referring to a very specific experience. I’m sorry if it offends you, but this is reality for some trauma survivors. Can we please stop telling people which words to use about their experiences because it is clearly just _____? It smacks of “Oh, well, clearly I know better than you” and isn’t terribly productive.
Now, I’m not really up on the new-feminism terms and I might have misunderstood you but the “privelage” [sic] concept sounds incredibly divisive and destructive. I can sort of see a flawed logic in it, but only just. PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, but is the point of this to create equality not by restoring the dignity, rights and well being of a marginalized group but rather by vilifying the antonym of that group. I don’t like the idea that instead of making things better for group A, lets make it a bit worse for group B and everything will be alright.
Say I am white, and black people are being oppressed. Me, the individual has “white privelage” [sic] and as such the injustices that one black individual experiences are now my fault, just for being a member of the white group. I am being judged by what some individuals in my group might be doing to one black individual. Even worse, it’s implicitly said that whatever my actions might be are irrelevant, by being a part of the white group I have the privelage backpack construct that control my behavior. I’m expected to act a certain way because of my skin color so society must make sure control my actions and shame me, or my built-in tendencies will surely run amock!
To be blunt: no, not even a little. Privilege isn’t about “fault” or “blame” or “making things worse” for anyone. Rather, it’s about being aware of the invisible advantages we are afforded by factors outside of our control. Saying, for instance, that I have privilege is in no way a statement about my character or an insult or saying that I am somehow directly responsible for the oppression of marginalized folks, it’s just a statement of fact, like saying I have blue eyes. I am not bad for having privilege just like I am not bad for having blue eyes. It’s a way to frame and discuss life experiences, that’s it. If you’re curious/want to read more I’d recommend starting here, here, and here. Go forth and educate yourself! (Keep in mind that all three tend to frame privilege in terms of maleness, but, like I said, it takes a bunch of forms. Yay intersectionality!)
I may post later this week about some other ideas brought up, but nothing as directly related.
Cheers!
Thanks for the great links.
That was a great podcast. Hearing women talk about being feminists and being queer and being gamers is really fantastic and refreshing. Would that it were less rare, but you have to start somewhere. So, you know, big ups. (My non-gamer wife normally tunes nerd podcasts out when I listen to them, but she listened along to that one).
I listened to the podcast and hadn’t heard about the dickwolf scandal mentioned, so I found the comic on Penny Arcade to see for myself. With a cursory glance, I saw nothing wrong with it. I thought it was funny for referencing a common occurrence in WoW that I never really stopped to think about: the plight of the 6th slave that you might want to save, but because you’ve completed the quest, cannot. After the first glance I went back to it and analyzed it based on the fact that it uses the word rape and had offended people. I still see nothing wrong with it. In this particular comic, rape, daily beatings and slavery are used to illustrate the miserable life of the slave and present a likely candidate that a hero should want to save. This acknowledges that rape among other things is a terrible experience that we should all want to prevent others from experiencing. The rape is not what is being laughed at here. It is the unrealistic RPG game design that is the comedic target. If using rape victims in a comic setting marginalizes the atrocity of rape, why doesn’t this other Penny Arcade comic http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/6/25/ marginalize suicide victims or victims of mass homicide or simply victims of gun violence(depending on the way you read into the use of the gun)? It seems like one comic got more attention than the other and I’m tempted to believe that some band wagon effect happened. I think I have more to say, but this is probably a long enough post as is.
I don’t think the comic you linked is particularly hilarious. Anyway, that’s beside the point. I think Tori and I both addressed this in the comments over at TWE if you want to go and read the long version.
The short version: it’s not just about the Dickwolves, it’s about their reactions to people bringing it up and further asshattery.
John: Yeah, it’s not about the first comic at all. In fact, a lot of the people pissed off about the dickwolves thing find the original comic (with the word rape) pretty funny.
Here’s the original comic. Funny!
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/11/
But the word “rape” set off some people Who Were Actually Raped. Now, mind that A LOT of these people simply wrote in to tell Mike/Jerry their feelings (“It set me off”, “Made me mad”, etc). Only like 1-2 people I saw online used that comic alone to push an anti-PA crusade. It was mostly just people writing in, saying “I love the comic, but it made me feel bad.”
The response from them Could Have Been, “Ah, sorry about that. We hear you.” or even “We apologize, we’ll be cognizant of it, but we will sometimes use these “trigger words” you speak of because that’s how our comic Is.” (the polite ‘we understand but that’s how we roll’ approach)
Instead, they did this, which pissed off FAR more people who weren’t at all offended by the first comic:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/13/
From there, they got a lot more email/complaints, to which they responded with News items that mocked those folks. And that was the true beginning, not that original (and funny IMO, I know where they’re coming from in MMOs) comic.
Skip ahead, where a lot of shitty people behave shitty-ly; mostly Mike’s ongoing mocking over news and twitter, pro-PA media outlets publicly calling complainers “C**ts”, groups of white dudes saying “fuck those feminazis, lets all wear Dickwolves shirts at the con to Put Those People In Their Place”, etc.
For me, I was Disappointed in that second comic, but the resulting BS made me furious at PA.
In the end, PA tried to say “Let’s stop this”, painting the anti-dickwolves people as bad as the “pro-dickwolves” people because “someone on twitter threatened Mike’s family”. When in truth it was this:
http://fucknopennyarcade.tumblr.com/post/3113020664/so-like-um-is-this-the-horrifying-threat-that
…which was like, seriously, not only a dumb joke, but no where near scratched the surface of the threats, jeering, hatred etc thrown by the Scared White Guys at the Women Who Dare Complain. Seriously, no where near. But that was the “last straw” that the PA guys to shut down the conversation. That shutdown, in the nicest way I can describe it, was totally manipulative and condescending. They did it in a way that made sure that they “Won”.
So that’s the quick. This was a great source of an interesting perspective from the other side, at someone hurt by the discussion and decided to go all balls to the wall (forgive the metaphor) hate as much as the opposition, complete with meme-images, etc:
http://fucknopennyarcade.tumblr.com/
But you kinda got to start at the End and work your way back to the Beginning for the “timeline”.
Ah, sorry one more example from the dickwolves thing:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/13/
In other words, he Literally doesn’t understand how someone might be bothered by Rape because they were Raped, and further suggests that they weren’t offended by Murder (they weren’t murdered), Suicide (they didn’t commit suicide), pedophilia (they simply weren’t a victim as a child), torture (they weren’t “medieval torture” tortured), or were not a fruit that was fucked by a robot.
That was pretty much the disconnect: Total lack of empathy. Then suddenly developing some faux-empathy (“cmon, guys! let’s all agree to get over this. on our terms.”) when people publicly discuss not going to Pax and putting money in their pockets.
I forgive easily, but don’t forget. So while I might end up going to PAX (and it is likely in the next year), and love a lot of the community underneath the Figureheads, I still won’t be entirely comfortable in participating in Mike/Jerry promo events etc. Oh well.
Andy: Thank you for the Dickwolf 101. The information was very helpful in understanding the full extent of what was going on and the links saved me a lot of time digging through the Internet for these posts. You put a lot of effort into explaining it all (evidenced by at least the length of your posts and link references). Explosive reactions from all parties aside, I would like to believe that I am not a terrible person for enjoying the comic or the other one that I posted suggesting suicide might be a less painful alternative to dealing with iPhone fans swarming outside a shop only to find out there is only 1 phone available. I agree with you that the “we understand, but that’s how we roll” approach would have been preferable. I would just like to hear that enjoying these comic strips, while not for all audiences, is not an inherently bad thing because some of the content I’ve read so far seems to characterize them as absolute evil.
I think his point was that they have an established culture on the site that you can joke about anything, and that there is a strange disconnect between some people complaining about a strip that makes a reference to rape while still claiming to be long-time readers and fans of the comic.
Maybe he is expressing a belief that the people who were contacting him are disingenuous. Or perhaps he is reiterating the often used but sadly seldom followed advice of “If you don’t like it do not read it.”
That old saying does not mean “Critics should shut up”. I honestly think that if one gets that offended by a comic you should not read it FOR YOU SAKE. Now, people should feel free to tell them off regardless, but fair is fair and then you get slapped with something like the follow up comic.
It’s when “This ain’t funny.” becomes “Nobody should find this funny.” and “This shit should be banned.” that I get upset.
The thing about triggering language is a weird one, firstly, I don’t think you can use the dictionary to solve it:
However justified someone is in terms of a dictionary, that’s basically the same as someone being justified in terms of their subculture: There is a way of using that word, supported by convention, that does not represent the specifics of the experience of a type of horrible violence.
That’s not the point, the point is that the significance to the listener is such that they find it extremely difficult to see that alternative usage. For them there isn’t any excuse for alternative usage, because it causes them to relive trauma.
So what do we do about that? Because it’s not just the word rape, people can have post trumatic stress disorder triggers from loads of stuff. As war happens more and more in an urban context, the sight of a children’s toy might do the same thing for someone, and your neighbour, a reader of your website, might be an ex soldier, a refugee.
For those people, certain words are sources of pain. In general I feel I can only be responcible for the triggers of those I know, and I know that I should be careful around those subjects but not avoid them completely, because it’s actually important that they attenuate that trigger.
But that’s not the same for rape surely? Isn’t that something that we can actually taboo? That’s not quite a rhetorical question, it seems like there is a class of things we can avoid including in jokes, avoiding things like rape or shot comrades, that will help certain groups to recover.
It’s different enough from normal life surely, that it can just not come up?
To me the reason to do that is not to leave these people having never dealt with some trauma, but to give them space to sort it out. And we can’t just taboo it from discussion totally, because there are some important issues around it that need to get sorted out and ignoring it could lead to completely different kinds of dodgyness.
My take? Don’t just stick it in conversations randomly, get there gently by the flow of conversation (or play). But that’s easier said than done.
And there’s something else again, (it’s taking ages to say this because I’m trying to be balanced) I think there’s a place for being horribly grotesque; where people don’t have to see it.
I just wish the penny arcade people had kept a distinction between their website and PAX, so they can be as offensive (and up) as they like on their website, but keep a check on the teashirts and so on, so they can keep PAX more welcoming. Different modes of expression for different contexts.
I think this is an important thing to reiterate, that there’s totally a place for, you know, whatever grotesquerie you want to engage in, but it’s away from public spaces, or at least not in spaces people with triggers expect to be safe.
I completely agree that if PA had kept PAX a separate thing I’d feel a lot more comfortable with it, but as it is with the Dickwolves shirts and the close link between their comic and the con, I feel really leery.
First, that podcast was awesome.
The following pushback by privilege? Not so much.
I feel like the trigger issue is a derail from a more fundamental point. I know when I sit down to play a game, I don’t necessarily want to deal with racism or sexism in my escapism.
The real question to be asked here is this: Does EVERYONE at the table matter? Does everyone get consideration on what they consider fun?
This privileged pushback crap is basically complaining about “being forced” to the herculean task to consider everyone at the table, equally.
And basically, arguing the ONLY way they can have fun is by inserting racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever into their gaming.
Which, uh, yeah.
I mean, it says a lot when these folks are focusing on the idea of “censorship” when, the entire podcast was about people having to self-censor to avoid dealing with near-guaranteed sexism and homophobia at the game table.
For people who are supposedly concerned about censorship, instead of asking, “What can we do to make it better for you?” they go wah-wah-ing that they might NOT get to have Chinese prostitute characters Ching-chonging at the table.
Of course, the issue they’re really arguing isn’t about censorship – it’s about the idea that (white/straight/male)’s fun is more important than (everyone else)’s fun.
Which is basically how, after listening to an hour of folks talking about having to self censor, or choose who they’ll play with, carefully, just to avoid drama, the first thing their worried about is NOT getting to be horribly offensive.
Much like the Penny Arcade drama, privilege just reveals itself further, the more it tries to defend itself, because it can’t help but build hypocrisy.
“Chinese prostitute characters Ching-chonging at the table”
This tale is growing in the re-telling.
Um, there aren’t really that many participents in this discussion, it seems weird that you would talk in so general terms about maybe 20 people?
Like are you talking about me there? Personally I think talking about triggers is an important thing, an extra layer on top of all the other issues, and a pretty new one culturally. And as we are using the internet, we can easily keep track of more than one line of discussion at once.
To fit the basics of your point, obviously everyone matters, obviously everyone makes accomodations. It’s a tricky thing to get right, especially if you start playing a game that is intentionally transgresive. That’s the basics of the lines/veils concept. I imagine most people listening to that podcast get that and that it applies whatever people’s privalidge, status, history, whatever.
But this blunderbus criticism is not very helpful. The person to whom it applies might not realise, or exclude themselves from the category, and everyone more concious of what you’re talking about will feel insulted. It’s like trying to make sides in a discussion, asserting that some people maybe you, are obviously trying to resist criticism because of concealed and childish motives.
Just seems rude.
It would be more combative, but less likely to cause collateral damage, if you named and criticised people directly. Plus if you do that, you might find that people were actually thinking stuff with greater subtlety and self-awareness than what you thought, which is always nice for your faith in humanity.
Hi Josh,
I wasn’t talking about you. But hey, defensive much?
I’m fine with not engaging the folks I’m talking about, because, based on their behavior, they are not in a place to really recognize, nor correct their behavior even if it is highlighted and pointed out to them. Privilege has a hard time listening.
BUT, it does serve as a useful teaching example to everyone else, who doesn’t necessarily buy into the shifted Overton Window of the kyriarchy about who does, and doesn’t matter, about how we end up getting sucked into arguing about fine details of specific words or images being used, when the real problem is overall behavior.
Wasting time trying to argue with strangers on the internet, or, even go through the effort of educating them, is pretty draining and is not really rewarding. So I focus on people with a clue, and talk about the behavior patterns, because, inevitably, another conversation appears, and exactly the same behavior appears again, even if you have different people.
That said, the people who are best in a place to change from problematic behavior are good about self-educating – in this case, there’s been a ton of links provided for people who want to go look, or google further knowledge on their own.
The folks who don’t do that, aren’t really interested in changing.
Definately defensive! Just thought I might be able to express it nicer than “others”.
An analytical philosopher would probably say you can’t have the overall points without it’s grounding in specific truth. Or in other words, when you agree with a statement instinctively and totally, you might just go yeah. If you agree with the principles of a statement but want to be balanced, you might take a critical stance towards its details. And if you disagree with the principle completely you might clam up, state flat disagreement, or you might use the same critical techniques, but to take it apart rather than to balance it.
In other words, I’m just suggesting it might be better to give people the benefit of the doubt without assuming bad faith, they might superficially look like someone who is doing so, and to start off assuming the worst is also a waste of emotional energy.
But anyway, to be more productive, if we agree that any group should work out their own norms and stuff with them as equals without defaulting to privalidged positions from broader society, do you have some experience doing that succesfully? Like “when I meet a new group of people, here’s how we work out what’s ok”. sort of stuff?
See my perspective when meeting new groups (mainly in gaming contexts) has been that that is really hard to do; the best examples in games are when we’ve started out really uncomfortable and awkward, and slowly got to know each other. Because we’ve not treated it as a random social situation like others, we’ve got to know each other more effectively.
The usual thing that happens is that I just take a no harm+defence+forgiveness approach, only get into disputes when I see someone elses discomfort, display my own discomfort but then let it go, and try to avoid ordering language until I know people better.
Is there such a thing as privilege-privilege. You know, where you’re privileged to label people as having privilege and concluding their opinions no longer matter?
I’m pretty sure most of the criticism is actually aimed at me. (I’m the one with the spelling errors. So sorry English is not my first language.) Now, if we set aside my complaints about the off-topicness of the podcast in question I would like to make it clear that I like most people make every effort to make sure those who play with me have a good time.
We all know the concept of lines and veils, and I am happy that my group has never had to use it. This might be because I play with friends and rarely have to deal with players that do not mesh with our culture. Should there ever come along a new member that does have a few issues he or she would like us to skip over during gaming we would do so gladly. The goal of the evening is for everyone to have fun remember.
Now, we’re a pretty diverse bunch. Males and females. Gay and straight. White and Asian. We make a lot of offensive jokes. Hell, we might even do a fake Asian accent from time to time. We feel secure enough in our lack of bigotry and our trust in each other to do so.
What gives you the right to dictate what we do in our private homes. What gives you the right to dictate what is and is not funny?
That shit pisses people like us of. Maybe thats why the Penny Arcade guys made that second comic.
George Carlin talks a little about that whole rape jokes thing. I’d tell you to watch it, but I don’t think you’ll find it funny.
Actually, the Rape of Nanking did include an amazing amount of sexual rape. It was one of the biggest mass rapes in history actually.
Great post, though. I agree with bankuei. Do you want your table to be a welcoming, fun place or not? If not, godspeed, nothing here will be of interest to you. If yes, start listening because these are real problems.
Truth about Nanking, though the Japanese will contest the severity of the event.
Good point re: Nanking, my point was the use of word rape to refer to a whole slew of atrocities, but I can see how it would be misleading. I’ll update the text to reflect this.
John-based on what I’ve read there really isn’t much international dispute about the atrocities, outside of some nationalists in Japan.
I made no claim regarding international dispute regarding the atrocities (China and Japan disagreeing on the severity would seem to qualify as such however). My post text reads “…the Japanese will contest the severity of the event.” My reading on the topic involves my year long course on Chinese history here at school. Some of those reading materials may not be available to the public online, however, here is an example of the Japanese contesting the severity of Nanking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3062141.stm Additionally, here is a quote from your cited reading Wikipedia: “Japanese historians, depending on their definition of the geographical and time duration of the killings, give wide-ranging estimates for the number of massacred civilians, from several thousand to upwards of 200,000.[77]” I feel these support Japanese dispute of the atrocities.
Right, sure, I just wanted to chime in that (1) not all (although certainly a significant number) Japanese dispute what happened at Nanking and provide a wider int’l perspective. Sorry if you felt I was unclear there.
A few notes:
- Although this is something that can get pretty emotionally charged, let’s try to stay civil and engage on a genuine level. If you can’t do that then I ask that you please re-think commenting until you can do so. Anything else is liable to make me grumpy and I will snark at you.
- I don’t think anyone here has said that privilege means opinions don’t matter, that people should be ignored because of it, or that it makes someone a bad person. If they have they’re rather off the mark. What it does mean is that those speaking from a position of privilege need to be aware of it and willing to re-examine their assumptions about how the world functions/is experienced by other people.
- Nobody is dictating anything, nobody is censoring anything, claims as such are derailing and irrelevant.
- If folks want to engage with me further about this, please go read the things I’ve linked above (if you haven’t already) and do some self education beforehand, then I would be more than willing to chat. You can even email me.
Nora, you’ve mentioned lines/veils conversations. I guess you’re talking about reactive (something has just happened we should exclude in future) or pre-emptive (we may be heading towards something, lets head off that potential) conversations that occur during or between sessions, but are you also thinking about starting off “here’s a new group, we know we’re interested in similar stuff, lets avoid these things ____” conversations?
Because I have never done the latter in any game I’ve been in. Wondering if you have (and hopefully made it work?).
I think the lines/veils conversation & terminology are really useful in all three cases. In the middle of game they provide a way to articulate something you’ve discovered that makes you uncomfortable in the this-isn’t-fun-anymore way and how you to address it, while at the start of game they’re a good way to set boundaries, alert players of things you know you don’t want brought up or covered in detail.
I’ve never had the “We’re a new group, here are some things I don’t want to touch on” conversation, but I think that is largely a factor of (1) playing with people I know well so I feel comfortable calling something in media res and (2) having a lines/veils conversation before the start of each game/”campaign” if someone has something they want to bring up. That said, I think it could be a really useful tool when forming a group with people you don’t know, as a way to feel out the tone of what the group’s looking for/to explore.
If I ever design a game (it is probably only a matter of time because I like telling people what to do) the lines/veils conversation is going to figure prominently in the text about how a first session should run.
I hope you do, because in the absence of a specific event or the lead up to it, I’ve got no idea how to do it! Like I wouldn’t know how to start, what my own list of issues were, or how to encourage other people to share that stuff. It’s just not something I have to hand mentally!
[...] feminism, racism, hoo-boy. I’m not going to educate anyone on these issues. Check out the links in this blog post, look for the paragraph that says, “To be blunt…” and where it says, “here, [...]
[...] is not an insult and should not be a divisive term. We’ve covered this. If you think it is you need to go back, re-read, and do some serious introspection to figure out [...]
Hi Nora,
I don’t see your email address, so I’ll write here, in response to your Walking Eye comment. (I have subscribed to your blog. Maybe your email will arrive that way. If not, no biggie. I’m not fired-up with tons of gripes to bombard you with. I’ve said my piece, and am satisfied. This reply is for clarification, not to ‘win’.)
First– thanks for inviting me to continue to engage one on one. That alone makes me feel like you really listen, and you treat individual responses individually, rather than lumping them together into ‘The Internet’. (I do understand why you have to draw the line somewhere, when it comes to responding to concern trolls.)
Second– I don’t dispute that Elizabeth’s response to the game was correct. If you gotta go, you gotta go. I do dispute that the other players’ behavior was “uninformed” . (To quote you above.) Nor was it [patently] “really fucked up” or a “no-brainer”. For example: the movie Blazing Saddles. Really fucked up! But not patently so: Two informed, anti-racist people can disagree about whether Blazing Saddles is critique-disguised-as-racism or racism-disguised-as-critique. I doubt there’s any way to ever ‘prove’ either side. And the movie is on film! Not just audiotape!
Which– Third– is something the podcast acknowledged: that our trusted friends can say potentially-offensive things and– despite the impossibility of ever ‘proving’ friends ‘deserve’ a charitable reading; it’s ok to give them the benefit of the doubt on a case by case basis.
Unfortunately, some of the subsequent discussion after the podcast– didn’t acknowledge that Third point. Certain people who Were Not There were overly sure that the game was offensive like a klan rally vs. offensive like a Chris Rock routine -about- racism.
And I am guilty of ranting-back against ‘The Internet’– lumping together things I read from bankeui, lumpley, Ms.HumorlessFeminazLesbodyke#2Ui; Andy K.— and then replying en masse against a composite opponent who Does Not Exist! (Which wrongly implied that the podcast co-hosts were the main ones I was ranting-at.)
I brought (upon myself!) several misundestandings about what my point was in my Story Games reply to the Walking Eye episode. In my defense– I contend that my SG replies do contain value– not merely Backlash, Privilege Pushback, Derailing, Piling On, Concern Trolling, etc.
Lastly– you’re right about my analysis of ‘triggers’ being wrong.
Thanks for considering my views.
Bah! That last comment still reads as me lecturing you on what’s-what.
Those were supposed to be footnotes to the discourse.
I am not asserting my counter-arguments trump others’ views.
I am just listing the only reservations I have, and they may well be moot.