Story Mode Controversy --REDUX

[theFlu]

Don't underestimate a good artist.

I'd like to agree, but I can't really come up with a great example of an "undeniably racist" painting. "Happy merchant" is a notorious example, but it's basically just an ugly dude. Any picture portraying an ugly dude is racist towards that race..? Same applies for depicting acts of violence, even with ugly stereotypes .. you need context outside the artwork to interpret something as obviously racist. But, it's not something I've given that much thought to.

 

[Roland]

Did that show generate any outrage? Not that I recall.

Same with “Longmire”. There was criticism voiced by some activists but nothing that got traction with the general public. The Casino Indian is a stereotype but it isn’t viewed as egregious as other instances of racism. TFP could leave everything as it is and I doubt there would be any blowback. Most people wouldn’t even know that individuals can’t own a casino.

John Mulaney has a famous bit where he relates how he was writing for a show and wanted to use the word “midget”. An exec came to him and said that using the word “midget” was as bad as using the “n-word”. Mulaney’s response was that if the exec was willing to say “midget” but couldn’t say what the “n-word” stood for, then they clearly weren’t the same level of bad.

I’d say that the same concept applies here. The casino Indian stereotype isn’t flattering and may be considered rude by some or simply inaccurate by those who know the laws, but it doesn’t rise to the level of universal outrage and disgust as other examples of racism might.

 

[zztong]

seems to be quite the fickle beast, there you say it didn't, here you assume it would..?

If you look at when we were making risk projections, I assigned it a 5% chance. I think 5% clearly shows I assume it is unlikely to be an issue, but recognizes it is possible.

My take on the conversation has never been that there is outrage. I don't think the OP said there is outrage because the story isn't finished. I think the OP said there's the potential for outrage depending on how the story is presented when finished. Outrage over Yellowstone seemingly simmered at an inconsequential level. What happens with the 7D2D story depends on how is turns out and I think the OP has only been urging caution.

 

[Kyoji]

If you look at when we were making risk projections, I assigned it a 5% chance. I think 5% clearly shows I assume it is unlikely to be an issue, but recognizes it is possible.

My take on the conversation has never been that there is outrage. I don't think the OP said there is outrage because the story isn't finished. I think the OP said there's the potential for outrage depending on how the story is presented when finished. Outrage over Yellowstone seemingly simmered at an inconsequential level. What happens with the 7D2D story depends on how is turns out and I think the OP has only been urging caution.

Pretty sure the OP specifically mentions the current portrayal of the character as an issue.

The Duke is represented as a "stock character" which is defined as:

A stock character is a recognizable, one-dimensional character type based on common social or literary stereotypes. They require no backstory and allow storytellers to quickly establish the setting or genre.

So that seems to fit the Duke to a "T". I think Casinos and Native Americans are commonly associated but beyond that I don't think most people today have negative biases towards them as corrupt. Also it's important to acknowledge positive stereotypes such as Native Americans and environmentalism.

 

[theFlu]

I think the OP said there's the potential for outrage depending on how the story is presented when finished.

What happens with the 7D2D story depends on how is turns out and I think the OP has only been urging caution.

Hmm; if I were a kinder man, I might buy that. I don't see the the arguments in the thread / OP as merely urging caution; it sounds more like "the racist stereotype absolutely must go".
- It seems quietly threatening an outcome that isn't going to happen, to pressure into changes. Somewhat like the difference between a protection racket and a security firm; just done for .. racist morals.
- It seems blind to any counterargument, like conditions where the stereotype is fine to have in. Whether willingly or not, I don't know.

It's .. weird. Can't say I trust it

The risk-management math only pays out with .. plenty of repeats. 19 times out of 20, the management for 5% is just a pure loss. But adjusting writing to meet every potential PC issue leads to bad writing, and that's a threat in itself.

 

[warmer]

Now, I want to make something very, very clear. I do think the story is racist. But I do not think this means The Fun Pimps are racist, on either the conscious or subconscious level. And I absolutely do not think that they intended this story to be racist.

Example: The "casino Indian" trope was hardly invented by TFP. It has been around for a couple decades now (at least). But it is an entirely false trope. Individual Native Americans cannot own casinos - only tribal governments can; profit from casinos must go to social welfare programs, not individuals; tribal casinos have never been hotbeds for organized crime; tribal casinos are required to make compacts with state governments (meaning any riches Native casinos make must also make the "White" state governments rich); and all of this is micromanaged by the U.S. federal government.

The "casino Indian" trope was not created by TFP, but it is a negative stereotype which is accepted by most people (who probably do not even know it is a stereotype), and it is used exactly as TFP is using it: to present Native Americans as corrupt, greedy, criminal, and antagonistic to White people.

The story is a reflection of reality. I live 5 miles from an Indian Reservation that has a Casino. Why is the "Casino Indian" racist? Most of the people working there are natives. They run the show. Do you actually have any real world experience at Casinos on Indian reservations? Do you have ANY experience with Casinos in general? I lived in Reno for years. Casinos are ABSOLUTELY a hotbed of crime dude. If you think a business that has $100k in cash flowing through it daily also doesn't have nefarious things happening, you simply don't understand human behavior or motivations of those that seek out gambling incentives. Gamblers are risk takers. They get high on it. Who else loves engaging in risk that has the potential for big payoffs? Criminals? Who ran the majority of Vegas Casinos/Hotels in the early days? The mob. lol You seem incredibly naive and I perceive that as a lack of real world experience coloring your rose tinted glasses.