I very much beg to differ (I studied this). There is about 2% of English culture that is actually English. In 1066, when the Normans invaded, they eradicated every single aspect of the Anglo Saxon culture that they could. We seem like the same 'race' because We are. We are all french. In that case, was the war not racist? Or do you have to have different skin tones to be racist? If you discriminate against someone with a tan, is it racist? Different races are people who originate from different countries, not just people of different skin tones. The colonists wanted land, and the Native Americans stood in their way. You really think that if the people were white it would have been different? And even if it WAS racist, if it was whites vs whites, would that have made it any less horrific? Are you are saying it matters if white people kill POC, but not if they kill whites or POC kill POC? I think the big thing that made the colonist's war so bad was that the colonists had FAR superior weapons, so the fight was completely one sided. It was a massacre, but it was no more racist than if the English had done it to the French. I hope you understand what I am saying here...
Yes, English (the language, culture, and nation) has stolen a lot from our neighbors on the planet Earth. I am descended from Norwegians, Swedes, Irish, Scots, English, Germans, and dozens of other people of different European countries. I cannot define whether or not that war was racist, as I did not live back then and experience that. If the goal was true extermination of the french/english due to their ethnicity, by definition that is racist, but if it was just to take control of their land and possessions or justified due to this, I would say that it doesn't qualify as a "racist war." It's the same reason why it was racist for the Nazis to steal the possessions of the Jews, but it isn't racist to have a white man steal from another white man to get money.
Racism is not dependent on skin color, but the majority of the time it is based on it. In your hypothetical scenario of "tan discrimination," that is not racism, as racism requires "discrimination against a racial/ethnic group, typically a minority or marginalized people," and being tan does not make you a member of a racial or ethnic group. Jews generally have skin as pale or paler than that of the average European, but they still face discrimination based on their ethnicity, making antisemitism by definition be racist. This is also why the Holocaust was horrific, it doesn't matter on their skin color, they were being killed due to their ethnicity.
I understand your point, and maybe I chose a bad example. Maybe a better example would be the War of 1812 between the English and Americans. That wasn't a racist war, as the Americans declared war due to a British blockades and other incidents. That was not racist, while the conquering of natives in the Americas, Africa, and Australia were.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
@Kotath, I agree. It's not an issue to have racism in your games, but justifying the racism with lore is not okay, IMO. If they want an army of monsters that are irredeemably evil, make them be like undead or constructs without sentience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I very much beg to differ (I studied this). There is about 2% of English culture that is actually English. In 1066, when the Normans invaded, they eradicated every single aspect of the Anglo Saxon culture that they could. We seem like the same 'race' because We are. We are all french. In that case, was the war not racist? Or do you have to have different skin tones to be racist? If you discriminate against someone with a tan, is it racist? Different races are people who originate from different countries, not just people of different skin tones. The colonists wanted land, and the Native Americans stood in their way. You really think that if the people were white it would have been different? And even if it WAS racist, if it was whites vs whites, would that have made it any less horrific? Are you are saying it matters if white people kill POC, but not if they kill whites or POC kill POC? I think the big thing that made the colonist's war so bad was that the colonists had FAR superior weapons, so the fight was completely one sided. It was a massacre, but it was no more racist than if the English had done it to the French. I hope you understand what I am saying here...
Yes, English (the language, culture, and nation) has stolen a lot from our neighbors on the planet Earth. I am descended from Norwegians, Swedes, Irish, Scots, English, Germans, and dozens of other people of different European countries. I cannot define whether or not that war was racist, as I did not live back then and experience that. If the goal was true extermination of the french/english due to their ethnicity, by definition that is racist, but if it was just to take control of their land and possessions or justified due to this, I would say that it doesn't qualify as a "racist war." It's the same reason why it was racist for the Nazis to steal the possessions of the Jews, but it isn't racist to have a white man steal from another white man to get money.
Racism is not dependent on skin color, but the majority of the time it is based on it. In your hypothetical scenario of "tan discrimination," that is not racism, as racism requires "discrimination against a racial/ethnic group, typically a minority or marginalized people," and being tan does not make you a member of a racial or ethnic group. Jews generally have skin as pale or paler than that of the average European, but they still face discrimination based on their ethnicity, making antisemitism by definition be racist. This is also why the Holocaust was horrific, it doesn't matter on their skin color, they were being killed due to their ethnicity.
I understand your point, and maybe I chose a bad example. Maybe a better example would be the War of 1812 between the English and Americans. That wasn't a racist war, as the Americans declared war due to a British blockades and other incidents. That was not racist, while the conquering of natives in the Americas, Africa, and Australia were.
(yeah, I get I am going back on my word but I am interested)
But does it matter if it WAS a racist war or not? Are non racist wars fine? also Judaism is a religion, not a race.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
As I mentioned a moment ago. Constantly comparing real world racism to anything in a fantasy game will get the thread locked - in which case, we are all booted from the thread.
What else do we have to compare it to? If we can't use examples from our real world, what else can we compare fantasy racism to?
It's a comparison that breaks down very quickly, thus, it doesn't have a lot of value (to me of course). It will end up going nowhere, as almost any thread of comparison has done that was between something in the real world and something in a fantasy game. The going nowhere ends up in a locked thread.
The comparison breaks down because one has very serious and damaging implications and effects. That's what happens in the real world. That's not the case in a game. That's why there's actual war and there's Call of Duty. The game doesn't glorify or condone the real world thing. The game can show it. You can take part in it with no harm done. I dare not say you can be entertained by it, but..as much as watching Saving Private Ryan wasn't enjoyable, it was an experience that I'd go through again and again, cheering how well done it was - yet the subject matter was horrible, as was American History X, and so on. That can be done in a movie because..it's a movie.
The same is said for the presence of, use of, or acknowledgement of, racism in D&D. In the real world, once seen or even hinted at, something should be done to stop it. The same should not be said for a fantasy tabletop roleplaying game. Once you compare it, you have to start thinking through taking a stance on it comparable to the other. This is horrible thinking.
I'll try this again, since people seem to have trouble understanding it. The issue is not racism in campaigns. Individuals can be portrayed as racist. Even entire nations can be portrayed as racist (although there should be room for individuals within that nation to be more open minded).
The issue is when races are presented in ways that justify that racism in some 'defined' manner, such as 'Race A are universally Evil,' because a God says so and/or despite the fact that they are otherwise presented as having complete free will, i.e. as somehow genetically evil, or similarly 'Race B are ignorant savages,' 'Race C are all wanderers who typically drink too much' or any other such negative, racial negative trait that ignores the fact these are still presented as free thinking beings otherwise.
That second situation is not necessary to have the first. One can have racism without it being objectively justified by racial descriptions.
You don't have to keep trying. You win. I'm joinin' the bovine!
1) But does it matter if it WAS a racist war or not?
2) Are non racist wars fine?
3) also Judaism is a religion, not a race.
1) In my opinion, yes, it definitely does. If you murder someone because they're BIPOC/LGBTQ+/another marginalized group because of who they are, that is worse than just "normal" murder. That's a hate crime, and motivation matters when committing a crime. If you kill someone on accident, possibly through negligence, you won't get as tough of a sentence as someone who killed them on purpose.
2) Absolutely not. I am not excusing other wars, but racial-based wars are worse. All wars are crimes, but race-wars are worse.
3) Definition of racism:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized
Definition of ethnicity:
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
Definition of culture:
the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.
Def of custom:
a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time.
And, I think anyone would agree that religions are "customs," which makes Judaism a culture/ethnicity. In conclusion, this determines that discrimination/prejudice/antagonism to Judaism/Semitism is racism, even if Jews/Semites aren't a separate race.
1) But does it matter if it WAS a racist war or not?
2) Are non racist wars fine?
3) also Judaism is a religion, not a race.
1) In my opinion, yes, it definitely does. If you murder someone because they're BIPOC/LGBTQ+/another marginalized group because of who they are, that is worse than just "normal" murder. That's a hate crime, and motivation matters when committing a crime. If you kill someone on accident, possibly through negligence, you won't get as tough of a sentence as someone who killed them on purpose.
2) Absolutely not. I am not excusing other wars, but racial-based wars are worse. All wars are crimes, but race-wars are worse.
3) Definition of racism:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized
Definition of ethnicity:
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
Definition of culture:
the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.
Def of custom:
a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time.
And, I think anyone would agree that religions are "customs," which makes Judaism a culture/ethnicity. In conclusion, this determines that discrimination/prejudice/antagonism to Judaism/Semitism is racism, even if Jews/Semites aren't a separate race.
I mean, either way, they are dead. Who cares the motive? say someone was killed because of their race, and someone was killed by a person of the same race for a different reason but intentionally....I really don't think it is up to you to say who is more wrong. Would you let the guy who killed for a different reason off with a lighter sentence? An if I was the one that died, I would be staggeringly offended by what you just said tbh. No offence, but it is in no way up to you to say who's lives that were lost in war mattered less.
In conclusion, this determines that discrimination/prejudice/antagonism to Judaism/Semitism is racism, even if Jews/Semites aren't a separate race.
By your reasoning, that also means that France vs England was a racist war because they had separate cultures. Expanding definitions until they match what you want to be true means you have to live with the consequence of those new definitions.
I did not expand the definition of anything. I am strictly using the definitions of the words. Also, as I stated above in a reply to GoodBovine, I said I probably chose an incorrect example for a war, and replaced my example of the French vs. English with the War or 1812. Stop doing bad faith arguments, please.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I mean, either way, they are dead. Who cares the motive? say someone was killed because of their race, and someone was killed by a person of the same race for a different reason but intentionally....I really don't think it is up to you to say who is more wrong. Would you let the guy who killed for a different reason off with a lighter sentence? An if I was the one that died, I would be staggeringly offended by what you just said tbh. No offence, but it is in no way up to you to say who's lives that were lost in war mattered less.
It is a controversial topic, but as there are harsher sentences on hate crimes than "typical" versions of those crimes in a lot of the US and other countries, there are a lot of people that agree that hate crimes are worse than normal crimes. It's not a matter of someone getting a "better" sentence due to not being racist/sexist/bigoted, it's a matter of punish that behavior and thinking.
I know that if I was discriminated against due to being on the Autism Spectrum, I would definitely be angrier than if I were discriminated against for any other reason. It's a matter of fairness. It's the same reason why someone that is a jerk to others because they're BIPOC is worse than someone who is just a jerk equally to everyone. I know, it's a strange concept, and it took me awhile to wrap my head around as well.
I did not expand the definition of anything. I am strictly using the definitions of the words. Also, as I stated above in a reply to GoodBovine, I said I probably chose an incorrect example for a war, and replaced my example of the French vs. English with the War or 1812. Stop doing bad faith arguments, please.
You keep saying "bad faith arguments" but I don't think it's being used correctly here. I'm using the definitions of the words you're providing, and applying a reductio ad absurdum argument to show you that the logical extension of your premise becomes untenable. Almost every human conflict can be attributed to differences in culture, which would mean there is an ethnic component at play, which would equate to racism, using the definitions you provided. Just because you're upset by the outcome of an argument doesn't mean I'm arguing in bad faith.
Just because you call an argument "absurd" does not make that true. You are yet to do anything besides make divisive posts without actually saying your opinion on the subject of the thread. You have also been misinterpreting and twisting my posts to something entirely not on the subject is a strawman. I would call that "arguing in bad faith."
Also, even if differences in culture cause a war (between the aristocrats and royalty of France and the common-folk that caused the French Revolution), that does not make it discrimination or racism against them. Also, though the definition of racism does not make this clear, not all prejudice/antagonism/discrimination against any culture is racism. Antagonism to a culture or person that is oppressing you is not racism, fighting for your rights against a different nation is not racism, and it is not racist to invade a country (though, historically a lot of invasions are based on racism).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I mean, either way, they are dead. Who cares the motive? say someone was killed because of their race, and someone was killed by a person of the same race for a different reason but intentionally....I really don't think it is up to you to say who is more wrong. Would you let the guy who killed for a different reason off with a lighter sentence? An if I was the one that died, I would be staggeringly offended by what you just said tbh. No offence, but it is in no way up to you to say who's lives that were lost in war mattered less.
It is a controversial topic, but as there are harsher sentences on hate crimes than "typical" versions of those crimes in a lot of the US and other countries, there are a lot of people that agree that hate crimes are worse than normal crimes. It's not a matter of someone getting a "better" sentence due to not being racist/sexist/bigoted, it's a matter of punish that behavior and thinking.
I know that if I was discriminated against due to being on the Autism Spectrum, I would definitely be angrier than if I were discriminated against for any other reason. It's a matter of fairness. It's the same reason why someone that is a jerk to others because they're BIPOC is worse than someone who is just a jerk equally to everyone. I know, it's a strange concept, and it took me awhile to wrap my head around as well.
I don't agree. If they are a jerk, they are a jerk. If someone is being a jerk to me, I see it as being exactly the same as if they are being a jerk to a POC. Cause I see everyone as equal. Including orcs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I see it the same way, but if they're being a jerk to the POC because they are a POC, that is worse than just being a jerk to you because that person is a jerk. I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that people should be punished more for killing a black person than a white person, which would obviously be an incorrect thing thing to do, but if they killed them for being black, that is worse than just being killed for a different reason. The same thing would apply to being killed for being LGBTQ+, religious, or being a member of another marginalized group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Just because you call an argument "absurd" does not make that true. You are yet to do anything besides make divisive posts without actually saying your opinion on the subject of the thread. You have also been misinterpreting and twisting my posts to something entirely not on the subject is a strawman. I would call that "arguing in bad faith."
Also, even if differences in culture cause a war (between the aristocrats and royalty of France and the common-folk that caused the French Revolution), that does not make it discrimination or racism against them. Also, though the definition of racism does not make this clear, not all prejudice/antagonism/discrimination against any culture is racism. Antagonism to a culture or person that is oppressing you is not racism, fighting for your rights against a different nation is not racism, and it is not racist to invade a country (though, historically a lot of invasions are based on racism).
Reductio ad absurdum isn't the same as calling something absurd, it's a mechanism to extend a logic argument to a point where it becomes absurd. In this case, it was the conclusion (using your definitions) that France and England fighting was racist. A reasonable person would conclude France and England weren't motivated by racial animus, but the logic you put forth got us to a different conclusion.
If you want my opinion on the subject of the thread, I think it's a terrible comparison. Real life racism has real life consequences and fantasy racism doesn't. Players aren't really going to know what it feels like to be subjugated just because some NPC spits on the ground and calls them a dirty half-blood or something. It's the same way that players don't really learn what it's like to be dismembered in combat. D&D is a game, not an after-school special. It's fun, it's escapism, and it's not necessarily a good mirror to reality.
As for the second paragraph, I'm not engaging as now you're just inventing things from whole cloth. Your first definitions included a specific set of parameters which you immediately discarded so you could push arguments like "It's not racism if you hate a culture that's oppressing you." If you have to preface something with "the definition doesn't make this clear, but" you might just be careening into emotional arguments instead of logical ones.
Okay, this topic came up in a thread of mine a few days ago, and completely derailed it as I had very different opinions than the other participants, and I didn't get to express my point before we had to end the "debate" there.
So, basically, I said that it was beneficial to be a Human in most campaigns, as humans are the most common race in most settings, and you will likely have less racial discrimination as a human than a Yuan-Ti Pureblood or Half-Orc, or other more monstrous race (Hobgoblin, Orc, Githyanki).
Others started arguing that DMs shouldn't even have any themes of racial tension or discrimination in D&D, and compared those that have those themes to real world racists, and were implying that if you have those problems in your D&D games, you are racist.
I was arguing that the purpose of having races in D&D and racial tensions is to raise awareness for the real world problem. You can't solve a problem by ignoring it. By exposing more players to racial discrimination in a fantasy game, where the player isn't being oppressed or offended, the character is, this shows the player how racial discrimination is prevalent in the real world, and can help with the problem more.
What do you think? Should DMs have racial tension in their games? I'd love to hear your thoughts, and have this thread to direct these discussions towards.
Saying having themes of racial tension in D&D makes one racist is akin to having killing make one a murderer. We're all violent psychopathic mass-murderers. Or maybe that would be silly.
It amuses me that violently ending lives is okay and the domain of well-adjusted people, but racism? That makes me uncomfortable, man. No one should ever feel uncomfortable when engaging with fiction.
This thread appears to have soundly run its course and very little actually relating to D&D has been mentioned for the last few pages. Instead, it's been mainly discussions of real world conflict, how they relate to racism, and frequent attacks on each others debate and discussion styles.
There is also a lot of people talking through each other and not to each other, treating this less as a forum of discussion and more a long-form version of twitter.
None of this is what these forums are for, and as this thread seems to have exhausted all it's D&D related energy, it'll now be locked.
Yes, English (the language, culture, and nation) has stolen a lot from our neighbors on the planet Earth. I am descended from Norwegians, Swedes, Irish, Scots, English, Germans, and dozens of other people of different European countries. I cannot define whether or not that war was racist, as I did not live back then and experience that. If the goal was true extermination of the french/english due to their ethnicity, by definition that is racist, but if it was just to take control of their land and possessions or justified due to this, I would say that it doesn't qualify as a "racist war." It's the same reason why it was racist for the Nazis to steal the possessions of the Jews, but it isn't racist to have a white man steal from another white man to get money.
Racism is not dependent on skin color, but the majority of the time it is based on it. In your hypothetical scenario of "tan discrimination," that is not racism, as racism requires "discrimination against a racial/ethnic group, typically a minority or marginalized people," and being tan does not make you a member of a racial or ethnic group. Jews generally have skin as pale or paler than that of the average European, but they still face discrimination based on their ethnicity, making antisemitism by definition be racist. This is also why the Holocaust was horrific, it doesn't matter on their skin color, they were being killed due to their ethnicity.
I understand your point, and maybe I chose a bad example. Maybe a better example would be the War of 1812 between the English and Americans. That wasn't a racist war, as the Americans declared war due to a British blockades and other incidents. That was not racist, while the conquering of natives in the Americas, Africa, and Australia were.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
@Kotath, I agree. It's not an issue to have racism in your games, but justifying the racism with lore is not okay, IMO. If they want an army of monsters that are irredeemably evil, make them be like undead or constructs without sentience.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
(yeah, I get I am going back on my word but I am interested)
But does it matter if it WAS a racist war or not? Are non racist wars fine? also Judaism is a religion, not a race.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
You don't have to keep trying. You win. I'm joinin' the bovine!
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
1) In my opinion, yes, it definitely does. If you murder someone because they're BIPOC/LGBTQ+/another marginalized group because of who they are, that is worse than just "normal" murder. That's a hate crime, and motivation matters when committing a crime. If you kill someone on accident, possibly through negligence, you won't get as tough of a sentence as someone who killed them on purpose.
2) Absolutely not. I am not excusing other wars, but racial-based wars are worse. All wars are crimes, but race-wars are worse.
3) Definition of racism:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized
Definition of ethnicity:
Definition of culture:
Def of custom:
And, I think anyone would agree that religions are "customs," which makes Judaism a culture/ethnicity. In conclusion, this determines that discrimination/prejudice/antagonism to Judaism/Semitism is racism, even if Jews/Semites aren't a separate race.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I mean, either way, they are dead. Who cares the motive? say someone was killed because of their race, and someone was killed by a person of the same race for a different reason but intentionally....I really don't think it is up to you to say who is more wrong. Would you let the guy who killed for a different reason off with a lighter sentence? An if I was the one that died, I would be staggeringly offended by what you just said tbh. No offence, but it is in no way up to you to say who's lives that were lost in war mattered less.
You are right on the last point tho.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
By your reasoning, that also means that France vs England was a racist war because they had separate cultures. Expanding definitions until they match what you want to be true means you have to live with the consequence of those new definitions.
I did not expand the definition of anything. I am strictly using the definitions of the words. Also, as I stated above in a reply to GoodBovine, I said I probably chose an incorrect example for a war, and replaced my example of the French vs. English with the War or 1812. Stop doing bad faith arguments, please.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It is a controversial topic, but as there are harsher sentences on hate crimes than "typical" versions of those crimes in a lot of the US and other countries, there are a lot of people that agree that hate crimes are worse than normal crimes. It's not a matter of someone getting a "better" sentence due to not being racist/sexist/bigoted, it's a matter of punish that behavior and thinking.
I know that if I was discriminated against due to being on the Autism Spectrum, I would definitely be angrier than if I were discriminated against for any other reason. It's a matter of fairness. It's the same reason why someone that is a jerk to others because they're BIPOC is worse than someone who is just a jerk equally to everyone. I know, it's a strange concept, and it took me awhile to wrap my head around as well.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You keep saying "bad faith arguments" but I don't think it's being used correctly here. I'm using the definitions of the words you're providing, and applying a reductio ad absurdum argument to show you that the logical extension of your premise becomes untenable. Almost every human conflict can be attributed to differences in culture, which would mean there is an ethnic component at play, which would equate to racism, using the definitions you provided. Just because you're upset by the outcome of an argument doesn't mean I'm arguing in bad faith.
Just because you call an argument "absurd" does not make that true. You are yet to do anything besides make divisive posts without actually saying your opinion on the subject of the thread. You have also been misinterpreting and twisting my posts to something entirely not on the subject is a strawman. I would call that "arguing in bad faith."
Also, even if differences in culture cause a war (between the aristocrats and royalty of France and the common-folk that caused the French Revolution), that does not make it discrimination or racism against them. Also, though the definition of racism does not make this clear, not all prejudice/antagonism/discrimination against any culture is racism. Antagonism to a culture or person that is oppressing you is not racism, fighting for your rights against a different nation is not racism, and it is not racist to invade a country (though, historically a lot of invasions are based on racism).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't agree. If they are a jerk, they are a jerk. If someone is being a jerk to me, I see it as being exactly the same as if they are being a jerk to a POC. Cause I see everyone as equal. Including orcs.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
@GoodBovine
I see it the same way, but if they're being a jerk to the POC because they are a POC, that is worse than just being a jerk to you because that person is a jerk. I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that people should be punished more for killing a black person than a white person, which would obviously be an incorrect thing thing to do, but if they killed them for being black, that is worse than just being killed for a different reason. The same thing would apply to being killed for being LGBTQ+, religious, or being a member of another marginalized group.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Reductio ad absurdum isn't the same as calling something absurd, it's a mechanism to extend a logic argument to a point where it becomes absurd. In this case, it was the conclusion (using your definitions) that France and England fighting was racist. A reasonable person would conclude France and England weren't motivated by racial animus, but the logic you put forth got us to a different conclusion.
If you want my opinion on the subject of the thread, I think it's a terrible comparison. Real life racism has real life consequences and fantasy racism doesn't. Players aren't really going to know what it feels like to be subjugated just because some NPC spits on the ground and calls them a dirty half-blood or something. It's the same way that players don't really learn what it's like to be dismembered in combat. D&D is a game, not an after-school special. It's fun, it's escapism, and it's not necessarily a good mirror to reality.
As for the second paragraph, I'm not engaging as now you're just inventing things from whole cloth. Your first definitions included a specific set of parameters which you immediately discarded so you could push arguments like "It's not racism if you hate a culture that's oppressing you." If you have to preface something with "the definition doesn't make this clear, but" you might just be careening into emotional arguments instead of logical ones.
Saying having themes of racial tension in D&D makes one racist is akin to having killing make one a murderer. We're all violent psychopathic mass-murderers. Or maybe that would be silly.
It amuses me that violently ending lives is okay and the domain of well-adjusted people, but racism? That makes me uncomfortable, man. No one should ever feel uncomfortable when engaging with fiction.
This thread appears to have soundly run its course and very little actually relating to D&D has been mentioned for the last few pages. Instead, it's been mainly discussions of real world conflict, how they relate to racism, and frequent attacks on each others debate and discussion styles.
There is also a lot of people talking through each other and not to each other, treating this less as a forum of discussion and more a long-form version of twitter.
None of this is what these forums are for, and as this thread seems to have exhausted all it's D&D related energy, it'll now be locked.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here