Orcs still equal “savage peoples”

So we just got the preview of 4E Orcs and they seem to be shifted a bit more towards the Norse/Celtic look, the language to describe them still mirrors the stuff they used to pull in the justification of the conquest of the Americas…

There’s nothing new here, but the descriptions I find triggering and problematic, if only because it mirrors it so closely. Bloodthirsty, lazy, savage, cannibal, tribe, despotic, etc. I suppose if they weren’t aiming for the 14 year old crowd, we might even get the “sacrifices babies to their god, Moloch, I mean, Gruumsh”. It’s also not hard to see how these ideas still float around as false judgments of us.

It’s always interesting how fantasy/sci fi has this deep obsession with manifest destiny- less technology/magically powerful races want to destroy you and take your stuff, more technologically/magically powerful races want to destroy/enslave you and take your land…

I don’t have a problem with the concept of a monster race on a certain level, after all, it is a game about fighting monsters. I think I find it more problematic that it’s drawing so much similarity to real world ugly that I have to question which is worse - the authors consciously drawing on the concepts to justify the fiction of violence (which I doubt they did), the unconscious drawing upon those concepts, which shows you how deep the conditioning runs, and, if this is a baseline archetype for “monster”, that not only throughout much of history, but even today, they can so easily dehumanize us and see us as monsters.

China Mieville on RPGs

From PIQ magazine, vol. 3 June 2008, China Mieville and the Unheroes of Un Lun Dun by Paul Starr

If people want to play games in that world- even if they want to play them using characters from the books- it would be foolish for me to think I could stop them….

…people are doing this all the time, whether it be fanfiction, or - if you’re talking about kid’s books- any time a kid waves a stick and calls himself Harry Potter, he’s roleplaying in that world. You’re not going to be able to stop him from doing that, and why would you want to? All fiction, to varying degrees, is interactive. Merely thinking about what happened after the book finished, people will be interacting with your world, and it seems to me that wanting to play a game in it is just an extrapolation, in a slightly geeky direction, of that tendency of the readers.

…we’re talking about inhabiting the world. And that’s what readers of genre fiction in particular do; they inhabit the worlds they read about. That’s one of the things that marks out our field. That, to me, is exciting and interesting, so I don’t really empathize with [authorial possessiveness]

I haven’t read any of his books, but I think that’s a pretty good outlook on both genre writing, and the creative stuff that people do inspired by mass media.

Disengagement Tactics

So, here’s the thing- how do we operate online and create spaces where we’re not constantly subjecting ourselves to foolishness? The big push I’ve seen in the last few years in terms of the way many of us are dealing online is a certain set of tactics for disengaging from the crazy.

The fact is, the more we utilize the power of the internet to speak truth where we once were silenced, the more folks will try to shut us down.

Mentally & Emotionally

The first step to disengaging is disengaging mentally and emotionally.

The problem is, some part of you imagines that the person on the other side is listening, rational, and simply doesn’t know better. Or maybe, that if you talk s-l-o-w-l-y and clearly enough comprehension will occur. Or that if faced with enough truth, the stupid must melt.

And sadly, like the comic demonstrates, this is a battle you cannot win. So how do you get your rational side to admit this? (or your emotional side to give up on them?)

I like to imagine the situation this way: If a random screaming street person came up to you, would you attempt to have rational debate with them?

The internet is a big street. There is a lot of screaming.

No, I don’t have to listen

There’s a trick that abusers know well- they convince folks to keep taking abuse by appealing to their sense of fairness, to “giving a second chance” and all those sorts of things which are great tools when you have a situation built on good faith.

But the problem is, these people aren’t working in good faith. Odds are, by the second or third exchange, if there was any good faith to be found, it would have shown up by now.

There is nothing that says you have to give equal time, or “free speech” to people on your blogs or forums. Even more so if they’re not paying you for the right. These same people would shout you down if you did the same on their spaces, the only difference is, why take the time and energy to shout them down when you can simply moderate comments or ban them?

My house, my rules. And the internet is full of places they can go, no need to squat on my property!

Moderated comments are your bestest friend

You want discussion but you don’t want flamewars? Moderated comments. Or, have limited posting rights to the people you know are cool. Foolishness loves to get a soapbox and especially if it feels that certain views are “underrepresented”. Because, you know, sexist, racist, and heterosexist ideas are totally totally oppressed views these days…(”Man, did you hear? They lynched another straight white guy! Then the cops shot him 50 times. Then he got raped! We’re so silenced, it’s like being invisible! Maybe if we got a white guy in political office, we could change things!”)

And there’s no reason you have to be anything BUT arbitrary about who you let comment or don’t let comment. A lot of times they’ll accuse you of being the very thing they’re doing, yet for some reason, despite their “crusade” for equality, you notice they never seem to be slamming on Stormfront, or gay bashers, or sites that advocate rape or violence against women… Funny that.

Do not read

If anyone ever makes you seriously angry, like personally angry? You should disengage immediately. Not because being angry is wrong, or bad (odds are Nazi McSexist needs his or her ass beat anyway), but because being angry feels crappy. And enough of it is bad for your health. If you know someone writes TeH CrAzY, then don’t read it. Like, if it ends up in your inbox as an email, or as a comment to approve, delete it on general principle.

You may wish to take secret heehees that they could have spent a good hour crafting some perfectly crafted argument about how slavery was good, rape is not rape, and gays are bringing the hellfire and you casually, cheerfully, deleted it without a thought. By not reading the crazy, you win.

“But what if they’ve changed?” the Jimmy Cricket asks. So what? If they’ve changed, good for the world. But they’ve already taken enough of your energy and time, why waste any more on the -chance- that this one person learned not to be a complete fuckface?

They can take their new and improved ass elsewhere and others can talk about what great people they are. Your victory is in being free. Remember, they’ve already proven they don’t like to read. Why give them the consideration they won’t give you?

Fuck you, I’ll stay positive

Feel free to keep your comments to just your friends, if you want. Maybe the internet could do with more examples of sane posting, instead of insane, asinine snark. Maybe it could do with a reasonable discussion that isn’t interrupted by random screaming street person pissing on the party.

Anyway, I’m hoping to find more of the folks I consider friends on my blog here, and less random people. You may find the commenting moderation to get more strict, probably if I see a dramatic upswing in asinine behavior.

Ah, I remember this

(via Penny Arcade)

It looks like a Chinese MMO has rediscovered the secret to CCGs. That is, most games, you have play to earn in game currency to get equipment, power, etc. In this game, you can pay cold, hard cash if you don’t want to put in the time. (For CCGs, it was this mythical idea that people would really support a trade economy instead of buying out the fucking booster boxes. This would only work in closed drafts in practice…).

As a design, it’s a smart move. Human nature loves instant gratification. Also, it allows you to not worry about having a suck beginning (as many videogames these days do), you just need to set the buy-in to the “sweet spot” at a rate most people are willing to pay. And, there’s also the other part of human nature which is about keeping up with the Jones’es.

On the other hand, it is taking people’s general worst tendencies and making them into videogame format for profit. (see also: Myspace when they added the “Top Friends” thing = mad internet drama, = more time on the site, = more advertising profit.)

From the article, though, my number one objection would be the “reorganization” bit about the peaceful kingdoms. It’s one of those things where you have to wonder how much bandwidth these folks were really eating up compared to the competitive side, how much it was “costing” them to let them play their game, the way they wanted to, and makes me think of bullshit like the EVE online guys hacking up their own resources or WoW breaking up GLBT guilds.

Iron Man

I give this 4/5 stars for entertainment- it’s a good action movie, and Downey definitely makes an entertaining Tony Stark. It at least touched on many of the issues that make the Iron Man series, though obviously did not dive deep into the more serious stuff (which, actually I’m sad about with comic book movies in general).

Now, onto the media criticism part of it. Some spoilers.