Why do we pretend like race won't be an issue during the apocolypse?

You ever thought about just how absurd it is that fallout is this multi-ethnic dystopia that for some reason has mutants, ghouls and deathclaws but still has multi-ethnic cultures, tribes and gangs?

We are somehow supposed to believe that all the skinheads, narcotics cartels and queer bashers are gone, but for some reason these absurdist mutations that cause immortality and super strength exist?

Also, you ever notice how neatly D&D races conform to our 3 biggest PC bugaboos?

Dwarves > Jews
Elves > Homosexuals
Orcs > Minorities

Its almost like the point of role playing games were to distract us from reality and prevent us from confronting complex moral dilemmas as adults..

Shadowrun even has it down to a science, using orcs and trolls to distinguish between mexicans and negros, so we can let asians join our little men's group.

We can't hide our prejudices from the universal language of art. The symbolism is not as clever as its creators intended it to be.

And what is D&D, really? An excuse to talk openly and honestly among the white, male, heterosexual, liberals who speak for the left. To acknowledge certain truths and decide who it is we are going to throw under the bus when the witchhunt comes for us.

Cause after all, aren't we basically the ultimate troll? Aren't we siding with the liberal majority to incite our protected minority to violence and discrimination? Aren't we the most hateful, jaded, twisted of them all?

Everything we discuss during dungeons and dragons is taboo. Genocide, war crimes, atrocities. Anarchy, mass murder, betrayal. Deviant sexual perversions, and of course, all encompasing, ever pervasive violence that permeates the settings backdrop, glossed over in such simple, cartoonish detail that all impact it might have had in storytelling medium is lost?

Who invented D&D? What was its purpose?

Isn't the ultimate lesson of dungeons and dragons that there is no evil so ultimately and utterly regressive as the prevailing morality of the times? That most evil is committed by our so called heroes in the name of justice? That by engaging in constant violence and oppression we support the futility of the feudal system and advance our own position in society?

Maybe I'm just jaded, but sometimes I wish I'd never picked up my first book. The truth can sometimes be hard to swallow.

Then of course is the glorification of ignorance, the praising of barbaric antiquity, the awe and admiration of violence, both as a tool and a vice.

We step outside our comfortable existance to imagine ourselves in a place and time rife with hardship and then imagine it as some sort of glorious paradise, a Valhalla where men can be men and people are set upon with challenges that make their lives worthwhile.

i think i'll be seeing you nuts in the trash

Is it any wonder that this last bastion of masculinity is under attack, that a safe place for our children and pitiful half-men to express their true feelings is being usurped by the liberal majority?

Is there any more profound of an incitement to take those who have no inhertance, no legacy of which to speak of, those who have submit to the authority and presence of the langauge of peace and still found themselves with want and hardship, to take away their last safe space, their fortress of solidarity, to crush any resistance, and scatter the poor wretches to the wind?

Can any man stand the sight of his beholden charges being turned into docile sheep, told to play and make merry, then taking their last shred of dignity and manhood and stomping it beneath their fetid heel?

If someone told you your children couldn't watch pro wrestling, or that they all had to wear tu-tus and boxing gloves, how would you react? If they closed down your favorite watering hole and built a church, how would you feel? If they handed every soldier a flower instead of a gun before leading them out to slaughter, you would no doubt object, would you not?

too long
did not read

They tell men they can no longer be men, and you say nothing. They tell soldiers, warriors and hunters that they can no longer fight, and you say nothing.

But when they tell boys they can no longer play make believe with swords or guns, then even I must object.

good for you.
here's your star.
wear it on your sleeve with pride.
we have a special train waiting for you.
don't be late.

>Why do we pretend like race won't be an issue during the apocolypse?
Because the collapse of the societal power structures that use race as a wedge to keep the lower classes fighting each other instead of their shared oppressors would make it a non-factor.

That and I would love to see the leeches survive with no welfare and no one caring about your womens studies degree. Of course it would just be replaced by tribal affiliation but at least nobody survives solely by pandering/Race card bullshit

this thread really fucking sucks

I dunno, most post-apocalyptic stuff tends to embrace that shit, and Fallout seems to run with it a slight bit. The thing is, most of the big ol' Fallout factions tend to have reasons to downplay ethnic fuckery. The NCR wants to promote Californian civic identity over any tribal shit, the Legion will clearly quash tribal identity in favor of obedience to Caesar, the Enclave only gives a shit about being 'pure' human instead of normal race stuff, the Brotherhood is basically an incestuous pile at this point and really only cares about their in-group, the Institute clearly values themselves over all others in a pretty fucked up way that doesn't involve race, and the Minutemen could be racist but still band together for self-defense. There probably are incredibly ethnocentric societies and tribes out there in the wasteland, and I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few vaults were set up to brew ethnic conflict. The narcotics cartels still exist, though with drugs rebranded as chems to keep the ratings of the first few games down. Morphine to Med-X and such.

Also, I strongly disagree with you on the D&D races thing:
The Orcs are usually cast somewhere between "I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-The-Mongol-Hordes" to always evil industrial foot soldiers. Not so much a depiction of minorities. Point being, they're usually portrayed as anything but what modern minority issues would be. Except in Shadowrun, but that's not a great setting, so whatever.
The Dwarves always seemed more vaguely Swiss, or at the least some kind of German, to me. I guess the obsession with gold and large noses could be Jewish, but considering their disposition towards mining, engineering, alcohol, and the like they strike me as more German than Jewish.
I get what you're saying about Elves, the portrayal of the race as beautiful race of harmoniy was always going to bring with it some faggotry, but I'd disagree that they represent the homosexuals. That's ignoring everything else Elves are.

...

Why do you chimp over a legitimate topic?

Man at least learn how posting on this site actually works before you go off. You made a half dozen posts out of content that would fit in one. I'm not even mad about the content, just your complete inability to use such a simple interface correctly. Moron.

Gygax and Arneson created D&D because Gygax put a triceratops toy on the field during a game of Chainmail and they both thought it was pretty funny.

It's easier to sympathize with people who want a humanity pure of mutants and cyborgs than it is to sympathize with people who want a humanity free of other races.
A large part of this is that I could easily see mutants being too dangerous to have around, and see cyborgs being too dangerous to have around, but I've known enough people of different races that exterminating them seems really far from a good solution.

Even when accepting that black people have a higher rate of committing violence, and even if I were to assume that they truly have an unfixably lower IQ, that leaves plenty of room for redemption. Even someone with down's syndrome can sometimes be a productive member of society.

>/pol/ is a containment board, guys

Depends when the apocalypse happens.

tl;dr

The only reason I’m posting is to register my confusion.

I suspect that concerns about race would be lost quickly in a post-apocalyptic world as local geography surged to prominence; the important questions would be more like “Where am I living?” and “What are the neighbors like?”

>Also, you ever notice how neatly D&D races conform to our 3 biggest PC bugaboos?
No...?

>Its almost like the point of role playing games were to distract us from reality and prevent us from confronting complex moral dilemmas as adults.
Isn’t fun the point of roleplaying games? I don’t see how they’re more distracting than any other kind of fun, or why fun would preclude “confronting complex moral dilemmas as adults.” But most importantly I have no fucking idea how any of this is connected to your previous... well, “paragraphs” is perhaps too generous.

What the ever-living fuck are you talking about? It’s like someone trained a Markov chain text generator on The Turner Diaries and drizzled “Dungeons and Dragons” on top of the resulting word salad. The first post has a coherent question in it, but the rest is a jumble of last bastions, tutus, fetid heels, bizarre assumptions about the goriness of your average campaign, and (of course) liberals.

This, atleast for the first part, never played D&D.
I think, following what user said, that there could be many ethrocentic groups, or better could have been. See, the Fallout Lore is, that the most peoble that had formed villages & stuff, came out of the vaults, after they were "prisoned" there together for around 50-80 Years. Considering, that most vaults seem to gave a shit about racial purity (Since it would falsen their social experiements, despite their could of course be a vault that had an experiement related to race.), the peoble had more than enough time to learn that maybe, not all Whities/Blacks/Men/Ciswhatever are evil. After that, they didn't care that much anymore, when the leaved the vault and settled in the wasteland.

8/10, not immediately obvious, yet irritating in several subtle and not-so-subtle ways, largely stupid but in a way that makes you think poster is genuine, with a dash of /pol/ to rile anons up.

Pretty good, user, pretty good.

Also, OP is probably a home schooled shut in and never endured any crisis at all. From my own experience going through flooding, and accidents, during tough times, people tend to huddle up and stick together. Idiotic differences are forgotten. The instinct to survival demands everyone cooperate or die alone. After a while, you become a tribe regardless of how you look. There will be assholes but they tend to be kicked out and ignored.

>Also, OP is probably a home schooled shut in and never endured any crisis at all.
To be fair, the same could be said of all /pol/.

>Why do we pretend like race won't be an issue during the apocolypse?

The reason racism is a thing in modernity is because life is cheap, so you are free to judge a person based on surface level shit like that, because 99% of the time, it's not like you need that person, he holds no inherent value for you.

In an apocalypse scenario, suddenly each human life is precious again. Sure, there may be a few leftover isolationist/racist groups around, but overall, people would be way too precious of a resource to waste them because their skin color is not to your taste.

>last bastion of masculinity is under attack, that a safe place for our children and pitiful half-men to express their true feelings is being usurped by the liberal majority

>bastion of masculinity
>used by children and half-men
I mean I have no idea what you're even trying to get at, but one of these things is not like the other.

>The only reason I’m posting is to register my confusion
Are you sure you're not just posting this on Veeky Forums because you wanted to shitpost about social politics on a board where it wouldn't be lost in the clutter of other shitposts about social politics?

user, back when the north was almost entirely white, people discriminated against the Irish and Polish. Once blacks showed up, everyone ganged up on them and now saying "Irishmen aren't white" gets you weird looks. People always want one ingroup and one or two easy-to-hate outgroups, and lump everybody into one of those slots. There's a dozen different ethnicities native to the UK, and back when all they knew was their island they hated eachother and discriminated based on it. Then you widen the scope: there's dozens of different light-skined groups in Europe, but people boil it down to whites and "not really whites" like slavs and meds, and nobody gives a shit about the difference between Welsh and Cornish anymore because the other guys are worse. Then you bring Africa into the picture: there's a hundred different African ethnicities, all fully distinct from each other, but that's too much work to keep track of so they're all niggers, and since slavs and meds aren't niggers they must be white. There has to be two outgroups at most; any more is more work to keep track of than anyone cares to put in.

Same shit in Fallout. Black skin and white skin will put aside their differences to gang up on green skin and goddamn zombies.

I am genuinely uncertain as to how these posts are related to social politics. I gather that the person who wrote them is concerned with politics in some way, but what is written here poses no interesting question, hypothesis, or idea, nor does it advance any identifiable thesis or argument; no factual information is presented, and the whole thing is framed in terms of rhetorical questions which make no sense. For example:

>Is there any more profound of an incitement to take those who have no inhertance, no legacy of which to speak of, those who have submit to the authority and presence of the langauge of peace and still found themselves with want and hardship, to take away their last safe space, their fortress of solidarity, to crush any resistance, and scatter the poor wretches to the wind?
Ethnic cleansing, or genocide in general? Apartheid, and other forms of explicit, institutionalized disenfranchisement? Multigenerational poverty? Did the author give this sentence more ham two seconds of thought?

I feel like I’ve fallen for some next-generation meta-bait.