Minor game stuff from around the web for commentary...

[zugschef]

It's like how you're not allowed to make repeated pro-racism arguments here on tgdmb, only Zak has a much larger bunch of things he gets fussy about.

There are no "pro-racism arguments". Even suggesting that there might be is fuckin' stupid.

[Korwin]

It's like how you're not allowed to make repeated pro-racism arguments here on tgdmb, only Zak has a much larger bunch of things he gets fussy about.

There are no "pro-racism arguments". Even suggesting that there might be is fuckin' stupid.

You are saying there are non who agrue pro-racism.
Or you tried to say no valid pro-racism arguments?
Or something other?

[zugschef]

It's like how you're not allowed to make repeated pro-racism arguments here on tgdmb, only Zak has a much larger bunch of things he gets fussy about.

There are no "pro-racism arguments". Even suggesting that there might be is fuckin' stupid.

You are saying there are non who agrue pro-racism.
Or you tried to say no valid pro-racism arguments?
Or something other?

b) there are no valid "pro-racism arguments."

[tussock]

Just a technical point, race doesn't exist outside the social construct, but if you ignore that and start from a set of axioms such that race is genetically inherited and also harmful racism doesn't exist, there's plenty of arguments that are technically valid and also horribly wrong.

All dogs are elephants.
I own a dog.
Therefore I own an elephant.

That's a valid argument (note, I don't even own a dog, and it's still valid). Just like computer programs, logic doesn't care. Logic preserves truth, but your axioms have to be true for that to matter.

[fectin]

Specifically, that is a "coherent" argument.

[animea90]

every adventuring party is also a band of wandering minstrels who respond to every job offer with a performance to try to get better pay.

"OK guys, this is a serious social encounter with the King, we NEED to convince him to help fight the demon spies, no messing around we need every chance we can get. So... everyone still has their kazoos right?..."


...Also, I feel bad for bad for everyone who had previously wished to see a hilarious interaction between Zak S's gibbering insane nonsense and Shadzar's gibbering insane nonsense.

No one could have predicted Shadzar's gibbering insane nonsense would inexplicably set to remarkably improbable levels of racism, sexism and all round slime bagishness.

I'm pretty sure people more expected, or at least hoped for, some innocent thing where Zak S declared that the least competent rules lite mechanics ever envisaged were the one true role playing and way of the future "because fuck you rules" and then Shadzar would declare that the worst ever imaginary versions of 2E/1E D&D were the one true role playing and way of the future-past "because fuck you rules" and then just gibber at each other for a few pages.

Shadzar. You let us down man. I am Disappoint on many levels. I am disappoint.

I think what he was trying to say is that developers should focus on designing games for players instead of special interest groups. He just phrased it terrible.

[animea90]

What "this kind of rules-exploitative behavior"? He didn't say what the question was, and he posted that in the comments of a blog post about how people who react to a rule that gives bonuses to dexterous characters with instruments by giving their dexterous characters instruments are terrible players - hardly disruptive behavior by any means.

True, he didn't, but it's not particularly relevant. The topic isn't commenting on Monte's judgment as to individual cases but rather the broad design concept: It's generally a waste of time to try to make rules that are asshole-proof.

You want to design your rules such that its obvious when a player is doing something exploitive(both to the player and the GM).

Its obvious if the player is using some convoluted interaction between 3 different feats to do something he would not be able to otherwise.

It is not obvious when the player carries around a banjos just because banjos give a +2 to diplomacy.

[animea90]

Just a technical point, race doesn't exist outside the social construct, but if you ignore that and start from a set of axioms such that race is genetically inherited and also harmful racism doesn't exist, there's plenty of arguments that are technically valid and also horribly wrong.

All dogs are elephants.
I own a dog.
Therefore I own an elephant.

That's a valid argument (note, I don't even own a dog, and it's still valid). Just like computer programs, logic doesn't care. Logic preserves truth, but your axioms have to be true for that to matter.

Race certainly does exist outside of social constructs. You can find statistical genetic differences between different populations and identify those as different races.

If the scientific community embraced your viewpoint, that would actually kill Black people, because we currently tailor certain drugs to different racial demographics. "race doesn't exist outside of a social construct" means we should stop doing this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/healt ... .html?_r=0

[Previn]

If the scientific community embraced your viewpoint, that would actually kill Black people, because we currently tailor certain drugs to different racial demographics. "race doesn't exist outside of a social construct" means we should stop doing this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/healt ... .html?_r=0

Your own source is not helping your argument.

We don't tailor drugs like that (and that is not a tailored drug), we don't know why Isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine works better in some cases for African-americans, but it also works for non-African-americans. In fact BiDil only did their testing on African-americans. What you have there is a good example of how sociocultural factors in disease causation get overlooked because of an overly simplistic assumption.

On top of all of that by applying for a race specific patent, BiDil increased it's patent length by 13 years, and they charge around 2.20$ per pill, which is more than 8 times the equivalent generic combination of isosorbide and hydralazine.

[ACOS]

If the scientific community embraced your viewpoint, that would actually kill Black people, because we currently tailor certain drugs to different racial demographics. "race doesn't exist outside of a social construct" means we should stop doing this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/healt ... .html?_r=0

Your own source is not helping your argument.

We don't tailor drugs like that (and that is not a tailored drug), we don't know why Isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine works better in some cases for African-americans, but it also works for non-African-americans. In fact BiDil only did their testing on African-americans. What you have there is a good example of how sociocultural factors in disease causation get overlooked because of an overly simplistic assumption.

Alright, fuck it - what about sickle cell, then?
What exactly is your overall point?

[Previn]

Alright, fuck it - what about sickle cell, then?

What about it? It's linked to locations and populations with a high incident rate of malaria either historically or currently.

What exactly is your overall point?

That his source was counter to his argument, I thought I was pretty clear on that.

[ACOS]

Alright, fuck it - what about sickle cell, then?

What about it? It's linked to locations and populations with a high incident rate of malaria either historically or currently.

While this could certainly take us down a Rabbit Hole of Insanity, I'll simply concede the point on its face.

What exactly is your overall point?

That his source was counter to his argument, I thought I was pretty clear on that.

Ah. I chimed in because your premise seemed (to me) to be a blanket rebuttal of animea90's rebuttal of tussock's premise.
Again, I'm happy to take what you've just said on its face.

[Sam]

Just a technical point, race doesn't exist outside the social construct

Just as a technical point, fuck you.

You know what else doesn't exist outside the social construct? Money. Nations. Language. But all of those are real fucking things, you disingenuous asshole.

Is race a social construct? Absolutely. Sometimes there's an underlying biological difference, and sometimes it's Dutch people measuring your nose with calipers and telling you whether you get to count as Hutu or Tutsi.

But even so, race is very, very real, because people treat it as real. Hundreds of thousands of real people in the very real place of Rwanda were really murdered for being the "wrong" race. It doesn't matter how bullshit the racial classifications were, those classifications were real, and they had real consequences for people's lives.

Just as people will treat you differently because you live on one side or the other of a "socially constructed" border, just as they'll treat you differently for having different amounts of "socially constructed" money, just as they'll treat you differently for speaking a particular "socially constructed" language, people will treat you differently for being a particular "socially constructed" race. And that treatment is real, even if the underlying reason is 100% socially constructed bullshit. To be a member of society is to be a member of your race in society. It's inescapable.

[ACOS]

Tens of thousands of real people in the very real place of Rwanda were really murdered for being the "wrong" race.

nitpick: christianity is not a race.

[Sam]

Whoops, I meant to type hundreds of thousands there. Sorry about that.

[deaddmwalking]

I'm pretty sure tens of thousands is more than hundreds of thousands in the same way that hundreds of thousands is more than millions.

[Dean]

But even so, race is very, very real, because people treat it as real.

What is important to know though is that it's not a biological truth it's a social one. When people say that "black people" are "a race" they are wrong in every imaginable way. Most people believe there is a scientific or genetic backing to the concept of race and I think it's valuable to point out that that's completely untrue and it is solely a social construct. I think that's valuable because it's almost entirely a harmful social construct and telling people it has no basis in biology or science may reduce some of its power.

[fectin]

Race is nothing more than a taxonomy anyway though. It is exactly as artificial as species. I'm not clear what context would make pointing either out important.

[GnomeWorks]

What is important to know though is that it's not a biological truth it's a social one. When people say that "black people" are "a race" they are wrong in every imaginable way. Most people believe there is a scientific or genetic backing to the concept of race and I think it's valuable to point out that that's completely untrue and it is solely a social construct. I think that's valuable because it's almost entirely a harmful social construct and telling people it has no basis in biology or science may reduce some of its power.

I've been contemplating this discussion. Ignoring the whole racism angle for a moment, if there are differentiations between what we commonly refer to as "race," in terms of genetics or what-not, that's important to know, and shouldn't be ignored.

So... dogs, right? We've got chihuahuas and German shepherds and all sorts in-between. We know they can interbreed, because you can get mutts and weird mixes and what-not, so they're definitely the same species. But you can't tell me there isn't a marked difference between the chihuahua and the German shepherd. Something is going on there, presumably at a genetic level, that is making these individual dogs manifest their "dog-hood" in vastly different ways.

I'm not a veterinarian, so I have to pose the question: is there any reason, whatsoever, to treat a chihuahua and a German shepherd differently, from a medical or scientific standpoint? Ignore dosage differences and what-not based on weight, that's not what I'm getting at; more things like German shepherds have susceptibility to some disease that chihuahuas don't, or chihuahuas are more likely to have some medical problem that German shepherds don't.

[Dean]

Race is nothing more than a taxonomy anyway though. It is exactly as artificial as species. I'm not clear what context would make pointing either out important.

If you told me that Dave is "a dog" I could make lots of very strong predictions about him right down to the genetic level, whereas if you told me Dave was "black" I would not be able to do that. It has been found that there is more genetic difference between people considered of the same "race" than of people considered a different race. "Race" is useless as a descriptor. It's a combination of skin color and a few facial features. Knowing someone's race is no more useful in making biological or genealogical statements as only knowing someone's height. There are tall people from Europe and tall people from Africa, so knowing that someone is tall is a useless basis to discuss biology. "Race" is useless for the same reason and will continue to be as long as a light skinned Algerians and Norwegians are both "White" while dark skinned Algerians and Australian Aboriginals are both "Black".

[DSMatticus]

I was going to mention it but got lazy along the way, but since Dean's touched on the general theme: sickle cell. The frequency among African populations is not constant or even remotely consistent. Depending on what region (i.e. what population) you're talking about, the frequency of sickle cell carriers can range from more than 1 in 3 to (far) less than 1 in 100. Yes, both of those are still higher than some other populations we don't call black (and lower than some other populations we also don't call black) but the variation there is huge. There are genetic differences between different populations of homo sapiens, but the extent to which our labels for race impart meaningful genetic information is god fucking awful.

The reality is that the populations of Africa are diverse, moreso even than anywhere else on the planet. Our species was born there, and every other human being alive descends from a small group of fairly recent departees. When they left, they only took a small subset of existing human genetic variation with them, and it simply hasn't been long enough for mutation to play make up for what was left behind. The labels for race we use are too big to impart significant biological information. They're just social constructs.

[Maxus]

My problem with discussions of races is sooner or later some people think race accounts for human intelligence and inherent behavior.

Most human differences between populations are less genetic and more environmental. If Asian people grow up eating, well, meat-heavy western diet, they'll be taller than someone who mainly grew up eating seafood and rice and veggies.

Likewise, it turns out poverty is a MUCH bigger drag on school scores than being black or latino, if those traits are a drag at all (and any evidence there is getting shakier and shakier as studies get better at controlling for the poverty factor). Growing up poor is an even bigger drag than your mother doing crack while you were in the womb.

To complicate this, we've also got cultural influences/memes that shape how people behave. If you grow up with everyone telling you being smart is bad, then you're more likely to dumb down to fit in. (And don't discount entertainment like tv and movies and stories in this, either. That shit makes a difference)

Genetics have some small part, but seriously: Developmental and cultural factors far, far outweigh any incidental genetics in humans being like they are.

[tussock]

Just a technical point, race doesn't exist outside the social construct

Just as a technical point, fuck you.

Thanks. For reals. I've spoilered your post below but it was a good one. I could have said that myself and didn't think to bother, so well said.

The social construct of race drives the racism that does immeasurable damage to billions of people's lives. No just within nations, but around the world. When my parents went to school here Māori would face corporal punishment for speaking their own language, and would be severely graded down for knowing their own history when it was different to the official government history of the time. The people who run my country now grew up under an education system that told them Māori were a dying race of ignorant cannibals who were only saved by the coming of the white man and only those who assimilated could possibly survive.

The first published history to say otherwise in my country is from the 1980's. It was written for an English publishing house who thought it strange that a realistic history of Māori in NZ had not yet been written, because almost no one in any position of power or press in NZ seems to have had any concept that it was even missing.

Which meets the UN's criteria for genocide. The deliberate state extinguishment of language, history, and culture. And it was done deliberately to post-facto justify the stealing of land and other resources to reduce the cost of the colonial enterprise for the favoured race, the British, or sometimes the English because fuck the Scots and Welshmen. Our disgusting history of Chinaman taxes (yes, that's what they called them), of special representation for Māori in parliament that amounted to 5% of the seats when they had 50% of the population.

And just this week there's a fucking full page electoral advertisement decrying Māori privilege and demanding an end to special treatment to make us an equal society. The privilege of being five times over-represented in prison despite good evidence they commit no more crime, the privilege of having twenty years less life expectancy, the privilege of having every tiny statistic that is anything like negative plastered in the press for weeks, the privilege of rich white folk decrying the state of Māori culture and demanding oversight so they can fix it all for them, the privilege of the lowest government funding of any group in the country for health and education which is always written up and quoted (of course) as being in favour of Māori.

The way there's criminals and then there's Māori criminals. Rapists and Māori rapists. Gangs and Māori gangs. The way our white supremacist neo-Fascist gang culture just gets casually ignored in the press, but it's just some guy getting arrested on drug charges again, and it's hardly fair because he's a pillar of the community, and the judge just sends him home anyway, but if one guy from the Mongrel Mob gets on tape in a fist fight it's end of the fucking world and we're passing laws that forbid (guess which) gang patches from being seen in public on pain of imprisonment.

Because you know, Māori, in a group, that's not just some guy, it's one of them.



And the people who get looked up to in NZ? Asian immigrants. Bright people you see. Especially the Japanese. Hard workers. Long lifespan. Good with money. Clever businessmen. Very low crime rate. Genetics or something. The genes they share, unsurprisingly for actual anthropologists, with Māori.

You know what else doesn't exist outside the social construct? Money. Nations. Language. But all of those are real fucking things, you disingenuous asshole.

Is race a social construct? Absolutely. Sometimes there's an underlying biological difference, and sometimes it's Dutch people measuring your nose with calipers and telling you whether you get to count as Hutu or Tutsi.

But even so, race is very, very real, because people treat it as real. Hundreds of thousands of real people in the very real place of Rwanda were really murdered for being the "wrong" race. It doesn't matter how bullshit the racial classifications were, those classifications were real, and they had real consequences for people's lives.

Just as people will treat you differently because you live on one side or the other of a "socially constructed" border, just as they'll treat you differently for having different amounts of "socially constructed" money, just as they'll treat you differently for speaking a particular "socially constructed" language, people will treat you differently for being a particular "socially constructed" race. And that treatment is real, even if the underlying reason is 100% socially constructed bullshit. To be a member of society is to be a member of your race in society. It's inescapable.

[zugschef]

Holy fuck. It's 2014 and there are still people who believe that there are human races. The UNESCO set the fact that there is only ONE human race in stone in 1950.

"How biochemically identical are we to our fellow humans? The DNA sequence in your genes is on average 99.9% identical to ANY other human being. Meaning, if you have a gene that is 1000 bases long, on average there will be only 1 base that is different between you."
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask166

[Fwib]

So what word or short phrase do we use to describe (as wikipedia puts it) the "classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation."

Or do you think that should have no name? [edit] Or to have several names describing several parts?