Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Paxiecrunchle]

I forget, has positve prejudice been mentioned here yet, like IDK assuming all elves are wonderful singers or such?

[SmileyMan]

I forget, has positve prejudice been mentioned here yet, like IDK assuming all elves are wonderful singers or such?

Some genius mentioned it...

Don't forget it's possible to have positive prejudices as well - all girls are kind-natured, all men are brave, all French people are great lovers etc.

It's also possible to have personal prejudices based on personal experience that don't come from either the standard 'distrust of difference' regarding physical attributes, or cultural knowledge.

So for a gameplay point of view, you could have:

Code: [Select]

initial disposition = sum(physical characteristic * (personal experience + cultural knowledge + differences) for all characteristics)
and so a dwarf who dealt with kind elves regularly would soon have the 'personal experience' overwhelming the cultural and difference factors.

[GoblinCookie]

I forget, has positve prejudice been mentioned here yet, like IDK assuming all elves are wonderful singers or such?

If I assume that all elves are wonderful singers, I assume that non-elves are generally worse singers. 

[Bortness]

I would actually love to see some form of prejudice ingame. Imagine two dwarf civilizations feuding because one civ likes to wear pig tail socks while the other likes jute socks or something.  I'm confused as it why it makes people uncomfortable. You can already do some pretty horrible things in dwarf fortress. I just can't see how one evil act or interaction is okay but another isn't. Being able to Genocide entire races is okay but adding in actual reasoning for that genocide isn't okay? (very horrible reasoning mind you)

Likely because logic and reason related to prejudice is the absolute worst thing possible to those who tend to be offended by non-politically-correct thinking and statements anyways.  The conventional wisdom these days (mostly, I imagine for the comfort of those who would otherwise be uncomfortable) is that anyone who exercises any form of prejudice is stupid, an idiot, ill-informed, etc etc etc.  When such a person begins to actually support his or her patterns of thinking with logic or actual facts, those who think otherwise have a tendency to go ABSOLUTELY BANANAS.

It is FAR more threatening when a challenge to a person's closely-held beliefs is backed up by logic than when it is nothing more than ad-hominem type stuff.

[Rockeater]

I'll just give my two cents

I would actually love to see some form of prejudice ingame. Imagine two dwarf civilizations feuding because one civ likes to wear pig tail socks while the other likes jute socks or something.  I'm confused as it why it makes people uncomfortable. You can already do some pretty horrible things in dwarf fortress. I just can't see how one evil act or interaction is okay but another isn't. Being able to Genocide entire races is okay but adding in actual reasoning for that genocide isn't okay? (very horrible reasoning mind you)

There are two argument i heard on similar subjects:
1.Peopole try to get away from things in their life with staff like this game, and a guy killing intire villeges on is on isn't happening so they aren't botherd by that (not toovalid inthis example beacuse this is a simulation and all)
2.We have in our culture ש variety of heroes who are heroes for their murder and by such decreased murder implication as bad in stories.

Likely because logic and reason related to prejudice is the absolute worst thing possible to those who tend to be offended by non-politically-correct thinking and statements anyways.  The conventional wisdom these days (mostly, I imagine for the comfort of those who would otherwise be uncomfortable) is that anyone who exercises any form of prejudice is stupid, an idiot, ill-informed, etc etc etc.  When such a person begins to actually support his or her patterns of thinking with logic or actual facts, those who think otherwise have a tendency to go ABSOLUTELY BANANAS.

It is FAR more threatening when a challenge to a person's closely-held beliefs is backed up by logic than when it is nothing more than ad-hominem type stuff.

Adding prejudice to dwarf fortress won't make it look any more reasonable and might even show how arbitrary it is.

I think that talking on this in detail withuot having some idea on how politics will look in the game won't achive much

[GoblinCookie]

Likely because logic and reason related to prejudice is the absolute worst thing possible to those who tend to be offended by non-politically-correct thinking and statements anyways.  The conventional wisdom these days (mostly, I imagine for the comfort of those who would otherwise be uncomfortable) is that anyone who exercises any form of prejudice is stupid, an idiot, ill-informed, etc etc etc.  When such a person begins to actually support his or her patterns of thinking with logic or actual facts, those who think otherwise have a tendency to go ABSOLUTELY BANANAS.

It is FAR more threatening when a challenge to a person's closely-held beliefs is backed up by logic than when it is nothing more than ad-hominem type stuff.

That is because prejudice happens to be a kind of stupidity.  If you successfully support your pattern of thinking with logic and facts then it stops being prejudice. 

[SmileyMan]

That is because prejudice happens to be a kind of stupidity.  If you successfully support your pattern of thinking with logic and facts then it stops being prejudice.

Prejudice isn't stupidity, it's an evolutionary necessity.

[Bortness]

That is because prejudice happens to be a kind of stupidity.

Absolutely not.  It is a form of pattern recognition, which is just about all our brains are good for.

[GoblinCookie]

Absolutely not.  It is a form of pattern recognition, which is just about all our brains are good for.

Prejudice is a pejorative.  If the pattern recognition is rational it is called pattern recognition, not prejudice. 

[Bortness]

Prejudice is a pejorative.

You're declaring things which are not necessarily true, and then acting as though your declaration is all that's needed to ensure the veracity of your argument.

Without prejudice, you walk into obviously dangerous situations blind.  Without prejudice, you die, period.

Prejudice need not be pejorative.  I can be positively or negatively pre-judgmental of another group of people.  Either way is prejudice.  And both help keep you alive.

Stop eating the post-modernist garbage hook, line, and sinker.  Groupthink is a thing.  Trying to deny it or force it to be untrue is merely naive.

[GoblinCookie]

Prejudice is a pejorative.

You're declaring things which are not necessarily true, and then acting as though your declaration is all that's needed to ensure the veracity of your argument.

Without prejudice, you walk into obviously dangerous situations blind.  Without prejudice, you die, period.

Prejudice need not be pejorative.  I can be positively or negatively pre-judgmental of another group of people.  Either way is prejudice.  And both help keep you alive.

Stop eating the post-modernist garbage hook, line, and sinker.  Groupthink is a thing.  Trying to deny it or force it to be untrue is merely naive.

We are not talking groupthink, we are talking language, which may well be the same thing  .  You can choose to re-define prejudice so that it is possible to have a 'rational and good prejudice', but as I said the world is to the rest of the world prejudice is pejorative, which means the use of the word prejudice implies irrationality and general bigotry.  The question then is what game is it that you are playing here, nobody else understands your alternative version of English. 

[Dorsidwarf]

reading this thread makes me confused, because every single person is using different definitions for every single terms, and none of those definitions seem to match up with any I've heard myself.

Also I'm not a fan of adding things to "enhance the simulation" which are already abstracted away, will annoy lots of people, and contribute precisely nothing to the actual game except as a soapbox for both sides of the argument to bash on each other smugly.

[Bortness]

You can choose to re-define prejudice so that it is possible to have a 'rational and good prejudice', but as I said the world is to the rest of the world prejudice is pejorative, which means the use of the word prejudice implies irrationality and general bigotry.  The question then is what game is it that you are playing here, nobody else understands your alternative version of English.

I using the term in its long-understood and long-used common manner.  For the last generation or so it has meant something very different, which I find ridiculous and socially abhorrent.  My apologies if this has caused confusion.

Let it be known, however, that it is not I who am redefining words.

[Rockeater]

Let us all save time and write our definitons here

[Salmeuk]

You can choose to re-define prejudice so that it is possible to have a 'rational and good prejudice', but as I said the world is to the rest of the world prejudice is pejorative, which means the use of the word prejudice implies irrationality and general bigotry.  The question then is what game is it that you are playing here, nobody else understands your alternative version of English.

I using the term in its long-understood and long-used common manner.  For the last generation or so it has meant something very different, which I find ridiculous and socially abhorrent.  My apologies if this has caused confusion.

Let it be known, however, that it is not I who am redefining words.

Well, if you like to speak Latin for everyday communication, sure. . .

But for the rest of us:

c. 1300, "despite, contempt," from Old French prejudice "prejudice, damage" (13c.), from Medieval Latin prejudicium "injustice," from Latin praeiudicium "prior judgment," from prae- "before" (see pre-) + iudicium "judgment," from iudex (genitive iudicis) "a judge" (see judge (n.)). Meaning "injury, physical harm" is mid-14c., as is legal sense "detriment or damage caused by the violation of a legal right." Meaning "preconceived opinion" (especially but not necessarily unfavorable) is from late 14c. in English.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/prejudice



So it's like this, and it will always be like this: words mean whatever you want, but that doesn't mean anyone else will agree - just like most of our knowledge. You have to understand context. The context of the use of prejudice is majorly negative, and while it is acknowledged that the word may be used in a neutral manner it isn't common. A reason must be found for that use, and there are better reasons than 'I am stubborn about word definitions.' I hope this rustles your jimmies, because 'post-modern garbage' is here to stay [unless fascism is your thing].