Are you the person I talked about this last time with? God fucking damn it
It's like the most standard thing in smutty reactionary writing to have the big, dark skinned savages molest the fair-skinned lady in a way that is both highly sexualized and functions as a causus belli for the protagonists. Have you seen any of SAO's arcs besides the first one and the Asuna-led one? All the others use this trope at some point as foreplay to their revenge porn.
You are displaying a level of media literacy that would have you defending Birth of a Nation if not for social stigma. "Obviously the black people in this setting are ontologically savage to keep you nerds from worrying about the possibility that there are Good Ones! In this universe, the Klan is heroic, so there's nothing wrong with cheering them on!"
There is no questioning of why this is the story the author wants to tell. Why is it along racial lines? Why is it a story of genocide instead of some revenge porn against a specific gang, like happens in Taken? Why do we have our hero be identified primarily as an exterminator of life-unworthy-of-life and not as a protector of the innocent, despite that being the nominal justification of the story? Why is the evil race coded as savage, with dark skin, primitive tools, and ragged clothes? What relationship does a work like this have with the real world? Having people be wronged by goblins and then monomaniacly fixated on ethnic cleansing because they are all bad sure reminds me of something I've heard of before.
my brother in christ it is a goblin it is a fantasy creature
Yes, a fantasy race one might even say. Tell me, was Birth of a Nation's biggest problem that it didn't make the black people have little cloven hooves and call them satyrs? Would it be above criticism if it merely depicted the revival of the Klan as a way to terrorize and slaughter these dark-skinned, lustful, savage satyrs with no relation to black people?
Because it is a dnd setting and it’s easy to write it that way
I promise you that it's just as easy to write the enemy as being bandits. Hell, even writing them as slimes (an even-more-common bottom-level enemy, #1 along with rats) would be better, since those aren't remotely humanoid but can have basically whatever properties the author wants because they are so literally amorphous.
I promise you that it’s just as easy to write the enemy as being bandits.
No because then you have the nerds going on about "what about their families" and shit. Revenge porn about bandits is imo worse than making it about a "race" shown to be objectively evil in universe but I guess then basically you just have fantasy batman idk
Anyway I am annoyed with nerds taking race essentialism from dnd and mapping it to the real world like tolkien's treatment of orcs is another Armenian genocide. "This goblin is a stand in for ME" :jesse-wtf:
Focus on the slime counterproposition then, instead of cherrypicking the weaker example like it's all I said
That said, it's hilarious how you readily concede that Rowling's goblins are fucked up tropes but here when you see goblins that have a single-minded motivation to rape and murder, live in Caves with crude tools and loincloths, have dark skin, low intelligence, and no empathy for the light skinned population that they terrorize, you go "Tropes? Tropes? Nononono, no way"
Even when you get someone directly saying "these are tropes of people from my race" you dismiss that person as a "nerd" like that just solves the issue.
What race?? What fucking real world race are any of those traits associated with? My god. They're... green! Rowling's goblins are literally a list of Jewish stereotypes. You're like... "Tolkien's gollum is racist caricature, he lives in a cave like a primitive and those are racial tropes" like :jesse-wtf:
Focus on the slime counterproposition then, instead of cherrypicking the weaker example like it’s all I said
I could and argue about how it's weak as shit when the only difference is one is humanoid and the other can be humanoid. A slime can be portrayed as just as sapient, and Im sure there'd be nerds arguing with me then about how they're a stand in for their ethnicity or something. Slime genocide is still genocide after all
What race?? What fucking real world race are any of those traits associated with?
Several! It's literally the most common racial caricature of aboriginal people and Africans, hence my mentioning Birth of a Nation.
"Tolkien’s gollum is racist caricature, he lives in a cave like a primitive and those are racial tropes” like
Gollum is a) an individual, b) a creature transformed into a lower state by the ring, c) a member of a race that we see many examples of and d) doesn't really conform to a racial stereotype anyway
The confluence of tropes I mentioned is, again, specifically the "savage" caricature whites used against Native Americans, Africans, and Australian aborigines, which involves many specific features other than living in Caves, features I listed and you feign ignorance of.
Slimes could be used in a racist way, but it would be exceedingly easy not to because they are capable of things that primate-likes aren't, such as mitosis or a more credible way of being both mindless and complex through hive or colonial functioning since they literally don't have brains. They can exist in the wild without being cavemen because they can form their bodies into tools, they can introduce many features that flat don't apply to people such as seeping through the cracks of stone fortification, being acidic, etc
This really isn't that hard if you try to think about it instead of shouting "nerd" over and over like it's a chant to keep evil spirits at bay.
Several! It’s literally the most common racial caricature of aboriginal people and Africans, hence my mentioning Birth of a Nation.
the concept of a primitive society living in caves in a fantasy world is racist because if you squint you can make it look like nonsensical, false ideas about a disparate group of unconnected ethnicities
This is just like if you asked 4chan to design a character named "the evil jew" and made your goblins look like that
Literally mad that they use stone tools just lmao my god
[a concept] is racist because if you squint you can make it look like nonsensical, false ideas about a disparate group of unconnected ethnicities
In a small way we're making progress because the rhetorical knots you are tying yourself in are increasingly poor.
nonsensical, false ideas
Standard of a racial caricature, or do you think Jews are really greedy?
about a disparate group of unconnected ethnicities
They are not especially close genealogically, but they are socially quite connected as colonized first peoples
Taking these things in mind, you question is if the depiction of goblins:
is racist because if you squint you can make it look like [the racial caricatures] about [colonized first peoples]
And suddenly the question is just the squinting part, i.e. "How similar is this to those caricatures?" which is what I've been trying to discuss, though you keep cherry picking individual elements when my argument is that it, like most caricatures, is a confluence of traits. It's like if the defense in a stabbing case said "Yes, my client owns a knife, but so do many people. Are you going to convict him just for that?" "Yes, my client was at the park at the time of the attack. What? Is it illegal to visit the park? lmao" "Yes, my client was seen disposing of what may have been a pair of gloves. What? Do you propose that just taking out the trash makes them a killer? Is that really all you have?"
Like, it's inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. I am not proposing these elements in isolation.
You can look at Dr. Stone and see primitive societies that aren't racial stereotypes, even though one of them is indeed quite violent. That's not what I'm saying and I think you know that's not what I'm saying, which makes me wonder why you even bother. Are you that upset by criticism of this obviously sexist, racist shit that you think you can just string me along until I get bored of it and then you can enjoy your wholesome rape softporn and genocide series in peace? I'm going to keep re-explaining myself every time you mischaracterize me, so you're going to need to develop a new coping strategy or just learn to wank while keeping your mouth shut. Do what you fucking want, but don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining.
Are you the person I talked about this last time with? God fucking damn it
It's like the most standard thing in smutty reactionary writing to have the big, dark skinned savages molest the fair-skinned lady in a way that is both highly sexualized and functions as a causus belli for the protagonists. Have you seen any of SAO's arcs besides the first one and the Asuna-led one? All the others use this trope at some point as foreplay to their revenge porn.
You are displaying a level of media literacy that would have you defending Birth of a Nation if not for social stigma. "Obviously the black people in this setting are ontologically savage to keep you nerds from worrying about the possibility that there are Good Ones! In this universe, the Klan is heroic, so there's nothing wrong with cheering them on!"
There is no questioning of why this is the story the author wants to tell. Why is it along racial lines? Why is it a story of genocide instead of some revenge porn against a specific gang, like happens in Taken? Why do we have our hero be identified primarily as an exterminator of life-unworthy-of-life and not as a protector of the innocent, despite that being the nominal justification of the story? Why is the evil race coded as savage, with dark skin, primitive tools, and ragged clothes? What relationship does a work like this have with the real world? Having people be wronged by goblins and then monomaniacly fixated on ethnic cleansing because they are all bad sure reminds me of something I've heard of before.
If it bothers you you could not
my brother in christ it is a goblin it is a fantasy creature
Because it is a dnd setting and it's easy to write it that way
Again i'm sorry it's not goblin befriender. That'd be a good show too but ya know, this ain't it
Yes, a fantasy race one might even say. Tell me, was Birth of a Nation's biggest problem that it didn't make the black people have little cloven hooves and call them satyrs? Would it be above criticism if it merely depicted the revival of the Klan as a way to terrorize and slaughter these dark-skinned, lustful, savage satyrs with no relation to black people?
I promise you that it's just as easy to write the enemy as being bandits. Hell, even writing them as slimes (an even-more-common bottom-level enemy, #1 along with rats) would be better, since those aren't remotely humanoid but can have basically whatever properties the author wants because they are so literally amorphous.
No because then you have the nerds going on about "what about their families" and shit. Revenge porn about bandits is imo worse than making it about a "race" shown to be objectively evil in universe but I guess then basically you just have fantasy batman idk
Anyway I am annoyed with nerds taking race essentialism from dnd and mapping it to the real world like tolkien's treatment of orcs is another Armenian genocide. "This goblin is a stand in for ME" :jesse-wtf:
Focus on the slime counterproposition then, instead of cherrypicking the weaker example like it's all I said
That said, it's hilarious how you readily concede that Rowling's goblins are fucked up tropes but here when you see goblins that have a single-minded motivation to rape and murder, live in Caves with crude tools and loincloths, have dark skin, low intelligence, and no empathy for the light skinned population that they terrorize, you go "Tropes? Tropes? Nononono, no way"
Even when you get someone directly saying "these are tropes of people from my race" you dismiss that person as a "nerd" like that just solves the issue.
What race?? What fucking real world race are any of those traits associated with? My god. They're... green! Rowling's goblins are literally a list of Jewish stereotypes. You're like... "Tolkien's gollum is racist caricature, he lives in a cave like a primitive and those are racial tropes" like :jesse-wtf:
I could and argue about how it's weak as shit when the only difference is one is humanoid and the other can be humanoid. A slime can be portrayed as just as sapient, and Im sure there'd be nerds arguing with me then about how they're a stand in for their ethnicity or something. Slime genocide is still genocide after all
Several! It's literally the most common racial caricature of aboriginal people and Africans, hence my mentioning Birth of a Nation.
Gollum is a) an individual, b) a creature transformed into a lower state by the ring, c) a member of a race that we see many examples of and d) doesn't really conform to a racial stereotype anyway
The confluence of tropes I mentioned is, again, specifically the "savage" caricature whites used against Native Americans, Africans, and Australian aborigines, which involves many specific features other than living in Caves, features I listed and you feign ignorance of.
Slimes could be used in a racist way, but it would be exceedingly easy not to because they are capable of things that primate-likes aren't, such as mitosis or a more credible way of being both mindless and complex through hive or colonial functioning since they literally don't have brains. They can exist in the wild without being cavemen because they can form their bodies into tools, they can introduce many features that flat don't apply to people such as seeping through the cracks of stone fortification, being acidic, etc
This really isn't that hard if you try to think about it instead of shouting "nerd" over and over like it's a chant to keep evil spirits at bay.
the concept of a primitive society living in caves in a fantasy world is racist because if you squint you can make it look like nonsensical, false ideas about a disparate group of unconnected ethnicities
This is just like if you asked 4chan to design a character named "the evil jew" and made your goblins look like that
Literally mad that they use stone tools just lmao my god
In a small way we're making progress because the rhetorical knots you are tying yourself in are increasingly poor.
Standard of a racial caricature, or do you think Jews are really greedy?
They are not especially close genealogically, but they are socially quite connected as colonized first peoples
Taking these things in mind, you question is if the depiction of goblins:
And suddenly the question is just the squinting part, i.e. "How similar is this to those caricatures?" which is what I've been trying to discuss, though you keep cherry picking individual elements when my argument is that it, like most caricatures, is a confluence of traits. It's like if the defense in a stabbing case said "Yes, my client owns a knife, but so do many people. Are you going to convict him just for that?" "Yes, my client was at the park at the time of the attack. What? Is it illegal to visit the park? lmao" "Yes, my client was seen disposing of what may have been a pair of gloves. What? Do you propose that just taking out the trash makes them a killer? Is that really all you have?"
Like, it's inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. I am not proposing these elements in isolation.
You can look at Dr. Stone and see primitive societies that aren't racial stereotypes, even though one of them is indeed quite violent. That's not what I'm saying and I think you know that's not what I'm saying, which makes me wonder why you even bother. Are you that upset by criticism of this obviously sexist, racist shit that you think you can just string me along until I get bored of it and then you can enjoy your wholesome rape softporn and genocide series in peace? I'm going to keep re-explaining myself every time you mischaracterize me, so you're going to need to develop a new coping strategy or just learn to wank while keeping your mouth shut. Do what you fucking want, but don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining.