The new and improved defender of RPGs!

Thursday 31 July 2014

When People Try to Own Minorities

I'm really too crazy-busy to write this; I've just gotten a new consulting gig (with a company that will be revealed in due time), and have also been busy exchanging some emails with WoTC (the subject of which may be discussed later). PLUS I've been writing up a storm for Albion (there's going to be some character-background stuff there that will kick ass).

But today I wanted to write about a point that has been a subject of conflicts on G+, as the Outrage Brigade keep pushing their false accusations of sexism, transphobia, racism, etc.

One fellow went as far as to say if I'm getting what I want that somehow means that people of colour, LGBT people, and other minority groups don't get what they want.

The error in your logic is the assumption that what I want is somehow opposed to what people of colour, LGBT, etc. might want, and that fighting me in particular is somehow a way to get what they want.

I guess maybe people of colour didn't want me to make an RPG that highlights a non- caucausian culture and all its awesomeness?
Perhaps LGBT people didn't want me to be the first person ever to put a transgendered character on the cover of an RPG, and to use "inclusivity language" for gender in that same RPG, several years BEFORE WoTC ever got around to it?

A gang of shit-heads fighting me because they don't like what I think about RPGs and using 'social justice' as an excuse is not the same as me being opposed to actual social change.  That's because the Psuedo-activists go around trying to own minorities like they were tools to use for their own ends, which I find disgusting.  They don't so much care about individuals who are in any minority group (evidence being how brutally misogynistic they can get against certain women, to the extent of calling them "fucksacks" - pause for a moment to realize how atrociously sexist that really is - and of course "hookers", if they don't do what the Pseudo-activists tell them to do); they just want to possess the rhetorical influence they can throw around by implying that if you're for the rights of minorities than you MUST agree with their agenda, and if you're opposed to whatever they want to do, you must also be opposed to minorities.

So let's clear this up: Pseudo-activist Swine, I'm YOUR enemy, not their's. I'm their ALLY.


Currently Smoking:  Lorenzetti Oversize Solitario + H&H's Beverwyck


  1. It's exactly like owning minorities. We see it all the time in US politics.

    But don't be confused when they say "social justice." Social justice is not justice. It's socialism. And the kind of socialism where they take all your stuff and use it for themselves.

    1. Which is why he said social change as well. Social change = good. Social justice = bad. Why is social change good? People get more rights and are treated equally. Why is social justice bad? You get assholes that try to censor you and use "protecting the weak".

    2. Sorry, but I don't think Social Justice is bad. I think it's absolutely necessary. Racial equality, gender equality, sexual equality, all these things, all the social change, is directly the product of social justice.
      That it gets abused by some assholes, in the same way that "patriotism" gets abused by assholes, or that "values" get abused by assholes, or any number of other terms, does not make it bad.

      The advance of social justice, crucially, depends on upholding the rights of the individual.

  2. It's interesting that a similar situation is occurring in SF; Eric Raymond's take is worth a read if you have the time:

  3. I have heard it said that there is no such thing as social justice, merely individual justice.