@ganymede said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
You may dodge the dichotomy, but that doesn't mean that others do.
I don't dodge it. It's not 'this is an inconvenient thing I'm going to ignore because it doesn't suit my paradigm'. I think it's absurd in its entirety, so I reject it in full.
...just like I'd reject a character that was so two-dimensional that an -ism (or collection of -isms) was their sole defining trait without hesitation. I'd do the same with 'is a marine' or 'is an artist' or 'wants to avenge their spouse's murder' or any number of other things that lacked any depth or nuance beyond that one trait or motivation -- and app staff should really not hesitate to do this.
Essentially, I don't think this is some unique issue that requires that dichotomy to exist, I think this is the same 'two-dimensional/one trick pony problem' we are all well familiar with manifesting in the form of a 'trick' that has the potential to be substantially more problematic and upsetting than some of the other tricks that make the rounds.
I don't believe in protagonists or antagonists as viable concepts on a MU*, period, regardless of any -ism either may or may not possess. They don't work outside of short-term NPCs, because a game is necessarily an ensemble cast.
A game isn't 'Iron Man 2', it's 'The Avengers'.
It isn't 'Misery', it's 'American Horror Story'.
It may contain any number of subplots in which individuals take on a protagonist or antagonist role, the protagonist in one may be the antagonist in the next, or each character in that subplot may consider themselves the protagonist, even if they are acting in direct opposition to one another. This third scenario is the most common on a game.
If someone's character is racist or sexist as a side-note or a background bit, then there's no reason why it can't be overlooked or ignored, or made to be just as aspect, not a center-piece. And if a character aspect is not a center-piece, then it can be ignored in interpretation.
(What you're describing relates directly to my preferred approach to this subject, but considering how many people screamed about that to high heaven the last time I brought it up like it was the actual end of the world, I'm not about to do it again.)
And this is the predominant fashion in which it exists: as an aspect or flaw, not centerpiece. Even if you are looking at most actual antagonist characters that have an -ism as a primary motivation for the character, it isn't the -ism that's the overtly antagonistic behavior, it's what that -ism motivates the character to do.
Still, people fall back on time-enduring tropes because there's a reason they survive: they are simple, over-valued, and as American as apple pie.
None of these things are remotely something that is a uniquely or originally American phenomena, c'mon now, that's more than a little ridiculous to even suggest. They're world-wide human bullshit that did not suddenly emerge out of nowhere when the Declaration of Independence was signed. They existed long before it and they exist all over the world throughout all of human history. Does that make them cool or OK? Obviously not, but come on. If it was that simple, people could just set a game in Victorian London or Ancient Rome and voila, utopia at last!
@insomniac7809 said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
Well, ideally it's an IC view not shared by players. But we've all seen people who play creepers, who use the IC screen to try to legitimize creeping on women across the screen. Right?
Rarely do these players play something 'creepy'. They play something they think is going to appeal to their target audience, and then they start working the creepy bullshit in, like turning up the heat on a frog in a pot until it's boiling.
The ones who actually go there -- the Rex/Ashur/Sovereigns -- are pretty much universally unwelcome in the community on games run by anyone with even half a lick of sense. Similarly, anyone espousing hateful or predatory views OOC tends to get bounced these days with impressive speed.
This is the first answer to resolution on this issue, no matter what 'allow', 'disallow', 'allow with consent amongst consenting players', 'some other option' approach any game environment takes on the IC content on the game: these things must have no place whatsoever in the OOC environment of the game, and that line must be held consistently, firmly, promptly, and without wishy washy hesitation about not wanting to deal with conflict by the game's administration.
There are some people who don't want to see hateful, hurtful, ugly words targeting people like them used during their pretendy funtimes.
Which is reasonable.
The only thing I'd say here is that it's somewhat reductive to suggest that the only manifestation this is likely to have would be the use of slurs being slung around. There's a lot more that can happen that's pretty horrible, too, obviously. Mostly, this is a case of 'limiting language is not going to solve the issue' and it's not going to stop people from encountering issues.
You can also run into a completely non-sexist character that spouts off, "Son of a bitch!" or "Motherfucker!" when they hit their thumb with a hammer who'd get slapped by a policy with this kind of focus -- I'm a woman RL and I absolutely do this RL (my poor thumbs, metalwork is seriously not for me, y'all) -- while the sexist character that tells their female employee, "I don't think a woman is suitable for that promotion. Too emotional. Sorry, dear. Could you make sure to get me a fresh coffee on your way out?" would slide by. Not ideal. 
There are some people who want to use those words and use the character as a shield.
Which is true, but should not be assumed as the default. Really. This is actually inappropriate. This is fundamentally no different than assuming any other trait or action a character demonstrates is indicative of the player identity, motivation, and integrity.
This same logic has been applied in the past to claim absurdities, 'They were playing a woman, they're not a woman, they are therefore a deceptive monster trying to make me be homosexual RL!'
Sounds opposite or different? It isn't. It's just a different permutation of the problem of making assumptions about a player based on the character, and one way it can go profoundly wrong in hurtful ways, when no one is actually doing anything remotely wrong or improper at all. The 'character gender' attitude described above exists in tiny pockets today, but it was the norm not so long ago. We have grown as a community enough to recognize that it was foolish and damaging.
There are some people who just think the barrier for proving they aren't in the second group needs to be higher than logging in from the other side of the planet and apping a character.
I have never seen a reasonable 'purity test' proposed. (I am literally cringing typing 'purity test' because I find this premise so awful, but there's no question this is what this amounts to.)
I have seen consistent insistences that the only actual 'purity test' possible that is valid is: don't play anything like this in the first place. And that's bullshit.
The reasonable purity test is that the player adheres to the letter and spirit of the 'law'/policy on the game in regard to bigoted behavior, whatever that may be. (Again, IMO, the only reasonable policy is: no, bigotry is not OK OOC on any level, period, the end.)
I do see a pretty big gap between hating shav'arvani or the goddamn metahumans vs. insisting that using the n-word as a comma is just historically accurate, guys.
And here's the problem again: those are not the only possibilities. The longer we keep characterizing people with a different perspective as one of these extremes, actual solutions are not possible because understanding and even comprehension of another's view is impossible. Reductionist thinking like this ultimately only serves to reduce the chances of any positive or productive outcome, because most of the people in the community exist within that very gap which has effectively been rendered null.
