Pseudoactivist Swine’s Ridiculous Double Standards
So Zak Smith (the notable writer of “Vornheim” and blogging celebrity of “D&D with Pornstars”) got banned from rpg.net at long last; I was just amazed he’d lasted as long as he did, what with being one of the few people the Swine might hate more than me (mainly because while I make games that are smarter than anything they do, and run websites more successful than theirs, Zak writes stuff about gaming that is more genuinely cutting-edge than anything they have ever been able to come up with in their decade of pretentious Forge/Storygaming bullshit; I make them look bad as game-designers, bloggers, or forum-owners, but he makes them look bad as avante-garde hipsters, which is I think a more unforgiveable sin). His ban came on the heels of the latest Pseudoactivist Swine Anti-RPG campaign, this time against Numenera, the setting Monte Cook left D&D for. After their anti-Golarion campaign, and countless anti-D&D campaigns, it only made sense they’d go after Cook; he represents (like those other two) part of the “problem” to them: regular RPG gaming being enjoyed.
Their accusation against Numenera? This multi-hundred page book had one monster in it, a type of succubus, that they declared made the entire project Sexist by its very presence (ironically, this monster along with much of Numenera was co-written by a woman, the awesome Shanna Germain). Zak’s involvement in the thread amounted to demanding that they have some kind of explanation of what constitutes sexism.
Jesus, Zak, don’t you get it? It isn’t about “proving sexism”. The non-definitions they use are specifically set up to find potential offense in anything; so what matters isn’t the “crime” as such, but who the accuser is and if they have the right credentials to be worthy to make the “claim” of prejudice (these credentials having nothing to do with any personal experiences or gender, but rather with whether you have publicly subscribed to sufficient pseudo-activist “causes” and espouse the right college-liberal ideologies). They have a right to be offended, others do not (hence all the people who were offended at the suggestion of boycotting Monte Cook’s game, or at the suggestion that any fan of Numenera must be misogynist, were thread-, topic- or perma-banned; while those who took offense at the succubus were fully justified).
Seriously, by the Pseudo-activist Swine standards, I dare anyone to look at ANY RPG book, or any piece of media; you would be bound to find something that someone could theoretically somehow interpret as sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive, and thus justify its elimination; for starters, they’ve just stated outright that any game that has succubi is censurable, and that context doesn’t matter at all. Its very presence is offensive and clearly malignant regardless of any other factors. As one poster sarcastically put it of them: “How many movies has Spielberg directed with nazis as bad guys? He’s OBVIOUSLY in favor of the holocaust!”
But the point is that battling sexism (or racism, or homophobia) is not their real motive. There’s a reason why a single monster in a gigantic rpg manual is “just cause” for outcries and boycotts, but a game where you throat-rape dead cabin boys for fun (Vince Baker’s Poison’d) is a praiseworthy vanguard of high art: because the writer of the former is a major figure in the D&D world, while the author of the latter is a pretentious fuckwit that happens to be an ideological fellow-traveller to these same Swine.
It doesn’t matter, Zak, whether the succubus matches an ‘objective’ definition of sexism or not, because that’s not the goal. The Goal for them is to attack the hobby they claim to be a part of but actually don’t like, to drive out the people who like this hobby, so that these games and these people can be replaced with new ones of their own design.
RPGPundit
(august 6, 2013)
So Zak Smith (the notable writer of “Vornheim” and blogging celebrity of “D&D with Pornstars”) got banned from rpg.net at long last; I was just amazed he’d lasted as long as he did, what with being one of the few people the Swine might hate more than me (mainly because while I make games that are smarter than anything they do, and run websites more successful than theirs, Zak writes stuff about gaming that is more genuinely cutting-edge than anything they have ever been able to come up with in their decade of pretentious Forge/Storygaming bullshit; I make them look bad as game-designers, bloggers, or forum-owners, but he makes them look bad as avante-garde hipsters, which is I think a more unforgiveable sin). His ban came on the heels of the latest Pseudoactivist Swine Anti-RPG campaign, this time against Numenera, the setting Monte Cook left D&D for. After their anti-Golarion campaign, and countless anti-D&D campaigns, it only made sense they’d go after Cook; he represents (like those other two) part of the “problem” to them: regular RPG gaming being enjoyed.
Their accusation against Numenera? This multi-hundred page book had one monster in it, a type of succubus, that they declared made the entire project Sexist by its very presence (ironically, this monster along with much of Numenera was co-written by a woman, the awesome Shanna Germain). Zak’s involvement in the thread amounted to demanding that they have some kind of explanation of what constitutes sexism.
Jesus, Zak, don’t you get it? It isn’t about “proving sexism”. The non-definitions they use are specifically set up to find potential offense in anything; so what matters isn’t the “crime” as such, but who the accuser is and if they have the right credentials to be worthy to make the “claim” of prejudice (these credentials having nothing to do with any personal experiences or gender, but rather with whether you have publicly subscribed to sufficient pseudo-activist “causes” and espouse the right college-liberal ideologies). They have a right to be offended, others do not (hence all the people who were offended at the suggestion of boycotting Monte Cook’s game, or at the suggestion that any fan of Numenera must be misogynist, were thread-, topic- or perma-banned; while those who took offense at the succubus were fully justified).
Seriously, by the Pseudo-activist Swine standards, I dare anyone to look at ANY RPG book, or any piece of media; you would be bound to find something that someone could theoretically somehow interpret as sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive, and thus justify its elimination; for starters, they’ve just stated outright that any game that has succubi is censurable, and that context doesn’t matter at all. Its very presence is offensive and clearly malignant regardless of any other factors. As one poster sarcastically put it of them: “How many movies has Spielberg directed with nazis as bad guys? He’s OBVIOUSLY in favor of the holocaust!”
But the point is that battling sexism (or racism, or homophobia) is not their real motive. There’s a reason why a single monster in a gigantic rpg manual is “just cause” for outcries and boycotts, but a game where you throat-rape dead cabin boys for fun (Vince Baker’s Poison’d) is a praiseworthy vanguard of high art: because the writer of the former is a major figure in the D&D world, while the author of the latter is a pretentious fuckwit that happens to be an ideological fellow-traveller to these same Swine.
It doesn’t matter, Zak, whether the succubus matches an ‘objective’ definition of sexism or not, because that’s not the goal. The Goal for them is to attack the hobby they claim to be a part of but actually don’t like, to drive out the people who like this hobby, so that these games and these people can be replaced with new ones of their own design.
RPGPundit
(august 6, 2013)
One Year Ago Today: the Outrage Brigade Were Up To Exactly the Same Thing
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire