#eoerp

i just went and checked them out, thanks for the tip! one thing i do have issue with is this:

“One thing I feel like some roleplayers these days forget is that even if a character is a murderer, racist, homophobic, or any other sort of path you want to take them down.. that does NOT mean the player believes those things, or that it makes them right. As writers being able to write from multiple perspectives with taboo topics and things that others may not agree with is a great ability to possess.”

while a role player may not believe these things, it still can be damaging for uneducated people (and I’m not saying anyone who is still in hs, who hasn’t studied a topic has a lack of knowledge in general, but rather do not posses the full breadth of knowledge needed to be able to approach certain standpoints from a way that doesn’t spiral into the role of a sympathizer).of course you might say, ‘well no, i don’t believe those things so I’m not a sympathizer!’ but taking things from a certain individuals pov has been done in order to humanize the people behind the masks. yes, a member of the kkk might love his family and dote on his son billy, but that does not make him a good person, and it is in a way excusing these acts to point out the good in people who aren’t. this can be very damaging!!! people are multi-faceted, there definitely are things going on in their lives and issues are not white and black. but is it okay to explore the psyche of a kkk member, to try and portray them in a way that humanizes the apparent ‘good’ aspects of their personality and puts their flaws on the backburner? to show that they are so much more than the racist rhetoric that they uphold? my answer to that is no, because it has been proved as something damaging, and it’s frowned on. especially when the platform that these characters, these plots, these stories are being built on are roleplaying sites. this is a hobby for people, these plots do not reach a great number of people, most don’t even branch out to read anyone’s threads other than their own. this is for you, for your entertainment and nothing more. the fact that it’s trying to be elevated like it’s some scholarly masterpiece, like they’re on such a high plane of self-awareness and that their writing somehow circumvents things that people have been correcting and fighting for years and years is kind of…not a great argument. 

I also want to look at this quote:

“You glaze over that these events, that these things and people that believe these ways of life are okay, do exist… we’re not here to say “you can’t do that”.”

because I’ve seen a few people trying to construct a strawman to argue with instead of me. if people have bothered to read through my points (silly me though, why would they do that), i have stated multiple times i’m not after the erasure of history, that i’m not trying to quiet people from discussing events in history, but rather looking at the context, research, and platform that these issues are being revealed from. so i’m really not sure why they’re trying to make this my standpoint - maybe because it’s easier to argue with than my actual points? 

We exist to explore the world they lived in through a collaborative effort. All of them. Which can be a complicated moral issue for some, but we've never hidden what sort of site we are. We do require that our members be at least eighteen years of age, and will hold them to a certain standard of knowledge and sensitivity surrounding the topic.

But for some of you, that's not enough. And while I can understand your feelings, I don't share them. And neither do our followers, or our staff. We are committed to the site and the historical setting. As you've mentioned, you'll have a problem with us existing as long as we exist so there's not much to say on it at this point. Any vitriol launched our way is simply that, and we won't tolerate hate or harassment lobbed our way. We will not give you a platform for your anger or outrage. You have your own space for that, and we can respect that. We ask that you respect us in a similar way.

i’m not really sure what you’re asking me….my stance has been the same the entire way through and my points on why i don’t agree are the same as when i started. i’ve never shamed anyone, i’ve just repeated that people who do not have the knowledge required to accurately put together a historical-fiction piece that doesn’t trivialize things shouldn’t be doing it. the entire premise of the site is what i’m against, so no matter what they do i won’t like it. 

however, they’ve blocked me in an attempt to quiet me, delete asks from people who do not agree and only publish people who agree with them. if i could reblog though i would bring attention to this point on their latest ask;

“cheap facsimiles are more, not less, offensive.” 

here’s the definition of facsimiles: an exact copy, especially of written or printed material.

thank you! to me it really depends how these things are handled. one big thing  that bugs historians is a movie that leans more toward a pure entertainment factor rather than an accurate one for the sake of a plot or keeping the audience entertained (be it through action, romance, or a ‘hero’ character). when the truth is erased in favor of entertainment value it can become problematic simply because the media has a huge, huge influence on people in the world (whether they realize it or not) and unless you take classes on certain subjects or invest yourself in researching something you might not even realize it just because that  has been the way things are presented to us. so someone may start believing things happened a certain way, or that they aren’t as big of a deal, etc. just because they’ve seen it in a movie based on ‘true events’ (which is a silly moniker in and of itself because you really don’t even need much truth in order to stamp this on).

there definitely are some movies, books, other mediums that deal with things appropriately. for instance, if a historian (or reporter, writer, etc.) went around conducting interviews, research, and understood the magnanimity behind the event(s) and realize how important it is to so many people and are focused on actually shedding light on what people went through, what their stories are, what actually happened then i am completely fine with it. i’m definitely not saying nobody should ever talk about these things, that we should wipe them from history and forget, because i definitely don’t! i really just think it depends on the context, tone and aim of a project.  i’m quoting this article because i agree with their sentiment here, “Films use Nazis as bad guys for good reason: They were bad guys. But all too often, genocidal Germans act as cartoon crutches for storytellers looking to pit good against incontrovertible evil.” so i do think that there are some projects that trivialize things, (nazi zombies, anyone?), but i wouldn’t throw a blanket statement out saying all are good and all are bad (sometimes something can be good but not entirely spot on, too) but you should definitely use your discretion (is it historically accurate, is it removing elements, is it trivializing the plights that people faced, would some people obviously be offended by it?).