Untitled

[friendlyfreakazoid]

Right-wing men openly and unashamedly say they hate women. Leftist men, being so progressive and enlightened, just say they hate white women and cis women and “terfs” and wealthy women and mean girl nurses and “Karens” and bitchy teenage girls and women who take feminism “too far” and misandrists and mothers and women who don’t coddle men and women who can’t take a joke and their girlfriends and theirs wives and and and

[anneone16621189]

Who was this conservative man who so openly declared that he hates women? And if you say Andrew Tate, I'm going to laugh at you; please find another bogeyman.

[anneone16621189]

Don't sugarcoat it now?

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>capitalism

>China

>due to social pressure

How did someone manage to come up with a stupider take?

[gopfails]

This would be perfect for you!

Since you are unemployed

[anneone16621189]

So what do you do for a living, parasite?

[gopfails]

Mad I made fun of your boyfriend

[anneone16621189]

So, no job having bourgeoisie, I see! Also, you forgot the question mark?

[gopfails]

It wasnt a question. But a statement. Im calling you a faggot

[anneone16621189]

Oh dear, homophobic slurs? You're sure you're not down with the GOP? Cuz apparently they're the ONLY ones who are cool with spitting out slurs, right?

[gopfails]

Holy shit you're a fucking loser

[anneone16621189]

I'm in good company!

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>capitalism

>China

>due to social pressure

How did someone manage to come up with a stupider take?

[gopfails]

This would be perfect for you!

Since you are unemployed

[anneone16621189]

So what do you do for a living, parasite?

[gopfails]

Mad I made fun of your boyfriend

[anneone16621189]

So, no job having bourgeoisie, I see! Also, you forgot the question mark?

[gopfails]

It wasnt a question. But a statement. Im calling you a faggot

[anneone16621189]

Oh dear, homophobic slurs? You're sure you're not down with the GOP? Cuz apparently they're the ONLY ones who are cool with spitting out slurs, right?

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>capitalism

>China

>due to social pressure

How did someone manage to come up with a stupider take?

[gopfails]

This would be perfect for you!

Since you are unemployed

[anneone16621189]

So what do you do for a living, parasite?

[gopfails]

Mad I made fun of your boyfriend

[anneone16621189]

So, no job having bourgeoisie, I see! Also, you forgot the question mark?

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>capitalism

>China

>due to social pressure

How did someone manage to come up with a stupider take?

[gopfails]

This would be perfect for you!

Since you are unemployed

[anneone16621189]

So what do you do for a living, parasite?

[bagelbread1275]

why does male rover get to be in the middle for BOTH sigils are you fucking serious

[anneone16621189]

Gacha games really do draw in the worst kinds of lowlifes, male and female. You people are just shitheels, aren't you?

[thydungeongal]

I have posted before about how sometimes well-meaning attempts at running D&D without some of the more unfortunate dynamics can often backfire but in a way where most people don't even register it backfiring. Because when you take the step of "oh D&D's various 'evil humanoids' don't just exist in a vacuum and given the renfaire colonialism on display it's kind of impossible not to read them as somewhat racialized" many people will then go "okay but we still need some people who player characters should be allowed to kill guilt-free, so let's replace 'orcs' with 'bandits' because killing bad criminal people is perfectly ideologically neutral." At that point it's like "okay so your characters are no longer the racist kill squad, now they're just the Tough on Crime Vigilantes."

But I feel I should make clear that D&D the game itself is not exactly at fault here: like, okay, it is sort of at fault in the sense that it is a game of fantasy killing people with swords and magic. And it is easier for people to accept the killing with people with swords and magic part when they can imagine that their characters are at least to a degree justified. That is sort of just built into the game (and the game has built into its lore varying levels of making the fantasy of killing certain types of guy justifiable).

But D&D is not at fault for making people go "okay so it's bad when you kill orcs simply because they're orcs. It's better when you kill people who are bandits, who are a class of evil criminals where killing them is actually wholesome and sensible." Like, yeah, most people probably don't think about it that deeply, but the reason people don't think about it that deeply is ultimately ideological.

And the ideology is basically "it is bad to be racist but it's good to be a tough on crime vigilante."

[krongbly]

I don't disagree with this post but I do think there's an important element being left out here which is that 9 times out of 10 players are engaging in combat primarily as a form of self defense. Most of the time it's less of "we can kill these people because they're criminals and that makes it ideologically neutral" and more "these NPCs are trying to kill us and the most effective way to stop them right now is to reduce their hit points to 0 which, if they fail their death saves, means they will die."

I think "vigilantes tough on crime" is actually kind of a bad descriptor for how most parties operate. This definitely varies wildly from table to table but I think for the *average* table there's honestly a solid chance that either your players are friends with at least one criminal NPC or even that they themselves are criminals. There's even an entire class who's fantasy is "criminal."

[thydungeongal]

I don't think the self defense point actually holds true in a meaningful sense.

In older editions of D&D, which were much clearer on the expected gameplay being "go into the dungeon and steal the stuff," there wasn't really this layer there. The rules for combat were generally quite harsh on player characters so combat was certainly something they didn't want to get into too casually, but ultimately the player characters were just going into the dang monsters' house and stealing their stuff. The monsters were arguably the ones acting in self-defense (but they're evil so who cares).

But in the WotC editions the self-defense justification is still fraught because modern D&D especially is an action game. It's a game where characters mostly have access to various methods of visiting violence upon their environs and where the gameplay itself rewards them for violence, because combat is the main source of experience as written in all WotC editions of the game and characters primarily grow in combat effectiveness.

The self-defense angle I feel is not supported by the game's rules itself, but is more of a narrative contrivance introduced by groups to make their characters feel more heroic.

My friend @tenleaguesbeneath once described it as, and I am paraphrasing, "characters hunting things for sport but the things attack them first so they can claim self-defense." Characters want to get into fights (because that's where the rewards are), characters primarily grow in terms of being able to get into cooler fights, but because getting into fights on purpose isn't heroic there's an angle of "those goblins started it" to make the characters feel more heroic.

I don't think this is a bad thing per se. It is one way to make the power fantasy of D&D feel less like the characters are violent thugs and more like heroes. But like it is basically a group of mercenaries going into a warzone, they can't really say "well we didn't really expect to have to kill anyone on our mission, but sadly, circumstances conspired against us." Fighting is what the game wants them to do and I don't think anyone is wrong for wanting to portray the player characters as engaging in self-defense, but it's only self-defense through a very crooked lens imo.

[lumpout]

Linking this to the modern "revenge porn" action movies like John Wick and Nobody.

The self defense/revenge motivation is a fig leaf for indulging in gleeful violence. While modern DnD fictionally positions the party as the righteous castle-doctrine empowered heroes; we should at the very least be critical of why it is doing that. It's functionally identical to the fantasy of "what would I do if a bunch of terrorists/bank robbers burst into the room?" Just because there's an in-universe reason as to why you get have to murder all those people in flashy and fun ways does not mean that it isn't what you (the player) sat down at the table to do.

[jambeast]

And the key thing to remember is that violence is awesome (in fiction) and we don't have to justify it to anyone.

[brazenautomaton]

Yeah this post is horseshit and the ideology behind it is soul poison. If you demand a Maoist struggle session for your D&D campaign for its ideological implications then 387.44 million miles of wafer-thin circuits is not enough to express the extent to which you need to go fuck yourself. The assumptions and demands you make are based in a concept of human experience that only exists to serve your politics. This is not how human beings engage with art, this is not how human beings engage with stories, this is not how human beings engage with games. You are suffering under this monstrous worldview and you are monstrous in attempting to inflict it on others.

You are not revealing a secret pro-vigilantism argument, you unfathomably vast stumblefuck. You are revealing that you have conditioned other people to be afraid of speaking up against you and they're unable to fight your openly malevolent bad-faith attacks, so when you threaten them with Unpersoning for some game mechanic or setting detail you don't understand, instead of standing up for themselves and telling you to fuck off they shuffle to the closest equivalent of it that they think won't get them yelled at.

[thydungeongal]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I personally enjoy playing D&D and thinking about stuff like this. :)

[general-cerberus]

why do you enjoy playing a combat oriented game when you think combat in the game is morally wrong? Like theres none violent tabletop games you could be playing instead

[cavegirlpoems]

i mean what's wrong with just... playing a game as a bad person? I for one *love* playing games where my PC is not really a good person. See, eg, most Vampire (and World of Darkness) games. Once you lose the assumption that your PC 'should' be a good person, a whole lot of gameplay avenues open up.

But then again I like playing Sabbat games so maybe I'm just weird.

[thydungeongal]

There's literally nothing wrong with it, but the reading comprehension squad on Tumblr has decided to go with a reading of my post that says "D&D actually should conform to my personal political views and if it doesn't anyone playing it is a bad person" when I am emphatically trying to argue for engaging with the game as is without trying to rehabilitate it. Sad!

[agentnoun]

Lotta people reacting to the OP could do with a reminder that someone can discuss a thematic element of a work without either praising or condemning it or the people who enjoy it. Sometimes it can just be A Discussion.

[anneone16621189]

No, it can't. That ship sailed ages ago. If some random dickhead says your fave is Problematic, you have 2 choices, either admit you are a scumbags who spits on the poor, or you burn all your bigoted crap in a fire and repent all of your regressive sins.

[thydungeongal]

I have posted before about how sometimes well-meaning attempts at running D&D without some of the more unfortunate dynamics can often backfire but in a way where most people don't even register it backfiring. Because when you take the step of "oh D&D's various 'evil humanoids' don't just exist in a vacuum and given the renfaire colonialism on display it's kind of impossible not to read them as somewhat racialized" many people will then go "okay but we still need some people who player characters should be allowed to kill guilt-free, so let's replace 'orcs' with 'bandits' because killing bad criminal people is perfectly ideologically neutral." At that point it's like "okay so your characters are no longer the racist kill squad, now they're just the Tough on Crime Vigilantes."

But I feel I should make clear that D&D the game itself is not exactly at fault here: like, okay, it is sort of at fault in the sense that it is a game of fantasy killing people with swords and magic. And it is easier for people to accept the killing with people with swords and magic part when they can imagine that their characters are at least to a degree justified. That is sort of just built into the game (and the game has built into its lore varying levels of making the fantasy of killing certain types of guy justifiable).

But D&D is not at fault for making people go "okay so it's bad when you kill orcs simply because they're orcs. It's better when you kill people who are bandits, who are a class of evil criminals where killing them is actually wholesome and sensible." Like, yeah, most people probably don't think about it that deeply, but the reason people don't think about it that deeply is ultimately ideological.

And the ideology is basically "it is bad to be racist but it's good to be a tough on crime vigilante."

[krongbly]

I don't disagree with this post but I do think there's an important element being left out here which is that 9 times out of 10 players are engaging in combat primarily as a form of self defense. Most of the time it's less of "we can kill these people because they're criminals and that makes it ideologically neutral" and more "these NPCs are trying to kill us and the most effective way to stop them right now is to reduce their hit points to 0 which, if they fail their death saves, means they will die."

I think "vigilantes tough on crime" is actually kind of a bad descriptor for how most parties operate. This definitely varies wildly from table to table but I think for the *average* table there's honestly a solid chance that either your players are friends with at least one criminal NPC or even that they themselves are criminals. There's even an entire class who's fantasy is "criminal."

[thydungeongal]

I don't think the self defense point actually holds true in a meaningful sense.

In older editions of D&D, which were much clearer on the expected gameplay being "go into the dungeon and steal the stuff," there wasn't really this layer there. The rules for combat were generally quite harsh on player characters so combat was certainly something they didn't want to get into too casually, but ultimately the player characters were just going into the dang monsters' house and stealing their stuff. The monsters were arguably the ones acting in self-defense (but they're evil so who cares).

But in the WotC editions the self-defense justification is still fraught because modern D&D especially is an action game. It's a game where characters mostly have access to various methods of visiting violence upon their environs and where the gameplay itself rewards them for violence, because combat is the main source of experience as written in all WotC editions of the game and characters primarily grow in combat effectiveness.

The self-defense angle I feel is not supported by the game's rules itself, but is more of a narrative contrivance introduced by groups to make their characters feel more heroic.

My friend @tenleaguesbeneath once described it as, and I am paraphrasing, "characters hunting things for sport but the things attack them first so they can claim self-defense." Characters want to get into fights (because that's where the rewards are), characters primarily grow in terms of being able to get into cooler fights, but because getting into fights on purpose isn't heroic there's an angle of "those goblins started it" to make the characters feel more heroic.

I don't think this is a bad thing per se. It is one way to make the power fantasy of D&D feel less like the characters are violent thugs and more like heroes. But like it is basically a group of mercenaries going into a warzone, they can't really say "well we didn't really expect to have to kill anyone on our mission, but sadly, circumstances conspired against us." Fighting is what the game wants them to do and I don't think anyone is wrong for wanting to portray the player characters as engaging in self-defense, but it's only self-defense through a very crooked lens imo.

[lumpout]

Linking this to the modern "revenge porn" action movies like John Wick and Nobody.

The self defense/revenge motivation is a fig leaf for indulging in gleeful violence. While modern DnD fictionally positions the party as the righteous castle-doctrine empowered heroes; we should at the very least be critical of why it is doing that. It's functionally identical to the fantasy of "what would I do if a bunch of terrorists/bank robbers burst into the room?" Just because there's an in-universe reason as to why you get have to murder all those people in flashy and fun ways does not mean that it isn't what you (the player) sat down at the table to do.

[jambeast]

And the key thing to remember is that violence is awesome (in fiction) and we don't have to justify it to anyone.

[brazenautomaton]

Yeah this post is horseshit and the ideology behind it is soul poison. If you demand a Maoist struggle session for your D&D campaign for its ideological implications then 387.44 million miles of wafer-thin circuits is not enough to express the extent to which you need to go fuck yourself. The assumptions and demands you make are based in a concept of human experience that only exists to serve your politics. This is not how human beings engage with art, this is not how human beings engage with stories, this is not how human beings engage with games. You are suffering under this monstrous worldview and you are monstrous in attempting to inflict it on others.

You are not revealing a secret pro-vigilantism argument, you unfathomably vast stumblefuck. You are revealing that you have conditioned other people to be afraid of speaking up against you and they're unable to fight your openly malevolent bad-faith attacks, so when you threaten them with Unpersoning for some game mechanic or setting detail you don't understand, instead of standing up for themselves and telling you to fuck off they shuffle to the closest equivalent of it that they think won't get them yelled at.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

Tumblr user thydungeongal: Trying to contrive a way to make this game about engaging morally questionable violence and graverobbing to be Leftist™ is an unproductive endeavor that not only is usually less fun than just deciding to simply play as violent, morally questionable graverobbers, but also usually ends up with even more unsavory implications.

The post understander 9000: WHY. ARE YOU. DEMANDING. EVERY D&D PLAYER. IN THE WORLD. TO HAVE. A MAOIST STUGGLE SESSION. EVERY TIME. THEY PICK UP. THE DICE. YOU. FUCKING. MONSTER!!!!!!!

[red-knight-black-knight]

considering the Post Understander's point is theoretically anti-moral-purity, it's remarkable how much vitriol they launched into at the merest suggestion that someone might think they did something mildly questionable. it almost beats out how they accuse her of "unpersoning" immediately after saying that her analysis is not how humans do things

like if "this is a little fucked up if you think about it" warrants "that is a monstrous malevolent horseshit bad-faith soul-poisoning unpersoning attempt", i hate to break it to this magnificent hypocrite but thydungeongal is not the one who has "conditioned other people to be afraid of speaking up" against her.

to be completely fair to them, though, they did make one good point, which is that someone engaging in this behavior should be told in no uncertain terms to fuck off.

[anneone16621189]

Bla bla bla your fave is Problematic, this thing you like is bad and you should feel bad. Same dance different music.

[outraged-honk]

Seeing so many Americans wanting their country to be destroyed. "Watch it burn" as one post said.

So you'd rather have no rights? You'd rather have no say in government? You'd rather have absolute chaos, widespread death?

Your privilage is showing.

If you hate the USA so much, leave. Same with other western countries right now.

Hating your country, sure, I feel we have at one point. However, wanting it destroyed is another story. Not only does it show extreme first world privilege, it also shows that the propaganda from terrorist regimes has burrowed deep into your common sense.

Being from a country that I can be free in, that I can associate with who I want, I don't have to worry about bombs, women can wear whatever, I like having democratic rights like freedom of speech, and to voice my opinions.

But you forget that what you have in the western world, all those rights and freedoms, they are not as common elsewhere in the world. Every country has a different system and protects their laws and citizens differently, while it says about 160 countries have this right, the same amount is said to violate human rights at the same time.

Be careful what you wish for because it might just come true.

Sources:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech

https://worldostats.com/country-stats/human-rights-index-by-country/

[anneone16621189]

If unearned, undeserved privilege is bad, why not have it taken away, why shouldn't first world nations be blown out from under their feet so they'll struggle for survival just like everyone else? It's the ultimate, undeniable way to check our privilege, right?

[sawbuckplus]

[gopfails]

Source

[generallemarc]

Me when I blindly assume everyone killed in police shootouts did nothing wrong to tell the people who survived actual fascism that they don't know what fascism is.

[gopfails]

They shot him infront of his child and dragged his corpse out into the street

They literally got away with executing a man in broad daylight and murdered a woman cause she was rude to them.

You're a vile person

[generallemarc]

Yes, how awful I am for not blindly taking your screenshots and very unbiased description as accurate, which you're providing in the context of saying that actual survivors of fascism are wrong about what fascism is and you, the privileged one who lives in a liberal democracy and is free to call the state whatever they want, know better. Y'all spend your time shrieking about ZioNazis while telling survivors of actual fascism to shut up when they disagree with you.

[gopfails]

Oh cool so now you're LYING about dead people. Very religious of you so tolerate and kind.

You're going to hell

[generallemarc]

Yes indeed, I'm going to hell for lying, which I did when I said absolutely nothing about any specific person beyond "you're just assuming all of these people were innocent of anything and not dangerous". Show me where I lied about a dead person. Please.

[nonenosome2]

"She was rude to them"

Damn. That is a weird way of saying she hit a cop with her car.

I'm sure the others are equally unbiased descriptions.

[gopfails]

Even the pedophile you worship disagrees with you.

Victim blaming a dead woman who cant fight back or defend herself is absolutely pathetic and you should be embarrassed to post your shit takes online.

[anneone16621189]

So where's your shame? We'll ALL end up in hellfire sooner than you think, so you'll have of eternity to kick the shit out of all the people you hate, including the Orange Baboon. See you soon, sucker!

[apricops]

we talk about how “let people enjoy things” has destroyed people’s brains but “good comedy should punch up” has convinced so many people that being pointlessly mean to strangers is not only justified but virtuous

[anneone16621189]

Being a coward. How many flesh and blood Nazis have you beaten into a pulp so far? Give a number and maybe people will be scared of you.

[apricops]

we talk about how “let people enjoy things” has destroyed people’s brains but “good comedy should punch up” has convinced so many people that being pointlessly mean to strangers is not only justified but virtuous

[rohirric-hunter]

Hnnnnnnnng the first time I heard the phrase "good comedy should punch up" it was a comedian answering a question about why he never did bits about things "relatable to black people" and he said "because good comedy should punch up." Hey! Buddy! I think you could have just said, "Because I am white and unfamiliar with that culture and I'm afraid I might be accidentally insensitive!" You could have said that! Instead!

Anyway aside from the way it -- I'm sure unintentionally -- came off, it kind of opened my eyes to the fact that most of his humor basically boiled down to insulting "acceptable targets" and wasn't actually all that funny.

[anneone16621189]

Not even if they deserve it?

[apricops]

we talk about how “let people enjoy things” has destroyed people’s brains but “good comedy should punch up” has convinced so many people that being pointlessly mean to strangers is not only justified but virtuous

[anneone16621189]

Well, what if disabled people mock abled people. That's fine, right?

[nacholaziness]

Woman: I have become a misandrist.

Her Sources: Data, evidence, lived experience, empathy

Man: I fucking hate women die (sexually)

His Sources: Being told no once, porn, his meth pipe

[hamstergetten]

Nope many men have data, evidence more than just being told no once, lived experience, and supposed empathy for their reason to hate women, and guess what. They are just as vile as you.

[tlaquetzqui]

Much less vile, actually. Almost all violence against children is abuse of sons by mothers. Men have literally an order of magnitude more right to gendered paranoia than women do. (To be clear, that just means it’s more excusable: it does still need an excuse.)

Also statistics are a much better argument for racism, since there are no bad things defined a priori as only done by black people and a bunch defined as only done by men. E.g. when you stop pretending “coerced into sex” isn’t rape when women do it to men, women rape men about 70% as often as men rape women despite coercion (as opposed to simply overpowering the victim) being the only way they can do it.

The simple fact is that we do teach men not to be rapists and abusers…and don’t teach women. The violence rates, sexual and otherwise, among lesbians show what women are like toward people who aren’t bigger and stronger than them.

[fromscratchmom]

To be clear most of this is a bunch of crap from both sides. Frightening and disgusting to see.

I was raped/forced is, in fact, a completely different thing than I gave in and I'm really unhappy and screwy now. Bring back the shame of "took advantage of" AND the allowable and understandable shame of "was taken advantage of" and quit lying about rape, sick POS's.

Both boys and girls are among the tragic victims of child abuse. And both men and women committ child abuse.

Lies. Damn lies. And statistics.

And all you people who hate everyone of the opposite sex so much you follow after every stupid lie you can find about them are f'ed in the head.

The sickness in society isn't that some groups are taught to not be abusers and some aren't taught that. The sickness goes much deeper and is about a million times more complex than that. You could make a strong argument that many people of both sexes are taught to be abusers. Groomed into it even.

If tumblr society is any indication, our society is definitely heading further into a deep chasm of catastrophes.

Here's the beautiful part. You have freewill. You can actually choose to work on yourself and improve in a million different ways. You can't make life perfect but you can experience upward trends.

You can be ok. Goodness still exists, even in the darkest times. Some will survive all the coming catastrophe. Some will live in glory eternally after this life. Seek help. You could someday be ok.

[anneone16621189]

Some MIGHT, most WON'T. These people made to choice to wallow in their hate, but that's not going to save them-or us, from whatever calamity is coming for us. We had our shot, time to face our obsolescence with some kind of grace.

[bitterbutesweet]

[parthenogenon]

Tbf, just right here, women are not treating men equally. If men give women nothing, women should give them nothing. Men must be so confused. They treat women poorly; women treat them nicely and ask for equality. And there's crazy women out there who treat them nicely and then FIGHT for equality. That must be insane to deal with, as a male.

[anneone16621189]

If you say so, sis. I'm sure you've been surrounded by moid filth begging on their hands and knees for your attention, right?

[peaceshine3]

[bobbsayshi]

I looked it up just to be sure and this shit is Fr y'all The Tasmanian people had a dialect and way of life that was different from other Aborigines. The British killed the men and women of the tribes and took away their food supply when they first arrived. Later they tried to “civilize” the Tasmanians and subject them to foreign diseases to kill off the last of them. The last full-blood Tasmanian woman was said to have lived until the year1888.

[eternalfratboy]

Wow!

[norest4thaweary]

at this point, what isnt racist in this country??!!

[jjsinterlude]

WHAT THE FUCK

[prettyboyshyflizzy]

Wow 😳😥

[marauders4evr]

As a History Concentration with a rather unsettling love for Looney Tunes and other classic cartoons, I never thought that I’d see the day where my two completely unrelated passions merged up so wonderfully.

And yet, here we are.

So let’s talk about Tasmania, shall we?

Actually, pretty much everything that the OP said about Tasmania is correct.

By the way, her name was Truganini (Nickname: Lallah Rookh.) If you’re going to use her legacy to try to criticize an old cartoon character you should at least give her the common courtesy of a name.

Now then, let’s talk about Looney Tunes.

Or more specifically, let us talk about the Tasmanian Devil.

Taz for short.

Great character.

Fun, energetic, hungry, and not a racist portrayal in any way, shape, or form.

The statement that Taz is a racist portrayal of the Tasmanian people is completely and one hundred percent wrong.

Now I know what you’re thinking…

“Alright marauders4evr, what is the Tasmanian Devil based off of?”

Well, Im glad that you asked.

Gather ‘round and listen closely now because this is going to be one of the greatest revelations that you will ever hear in your mortal lives.

The Tasmanian Devil…

…is based off of the Tasmanian Devil!

Yeah!

It’s a real animal!

An energetic animal who eats everything in its sight.

And Robert McKimson based a character off of it.

Speaking of one of the great men behind Looney Tunes…

Let’s talk about Mel Blanc!

I love him!

I wish that I could have met him!

He’s one of my late heroes.

Phenomenal voice actor.

The best that has ever existed.

The Man of 1000 Voices he’s called.

(And that’s an underestimate!)

The point is that he took a lot of pride in his work.

So what did he base Taz’s dialect off of?

I can tell you right now that it wasn’t the Tasmanian people.

Mel Blanc based the sound of the Tasmanian Devil…

…off of the Tasmanian Devil!

Here’s a clip of Taz’s dialect:

And here’s a clip of the Tasmanian Devil’s scream:

(Chilling, ain’t it?)

(On a side note, I just love to imagine Mel in the recording booth, screaming and growling before calmly doing Bugs’ voice!)

In conclusion…

What happened to the Tasmanian people truly is saddening and I wish that it hadn’t happened.

THE TASMANIAN DEVIL (TAZ) IS NOT A RACIST PORTRAYAL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM

THE TASMANIAN DEVIL IS A REAL ANIMAL!

MEL BLANC WAS AWESOME AND DESERVES YOUR UTMOST RESPECT!

T-T-T-T-T-T-THAT’S ALL FOLKS!

[spider-hands-mannos-deactivated]

Fabulous

[thatjedirey]

There’s enough actual, legitimate racism in this world. Speak out against that instead of making shit up.

[tranny-levi-deactivated20180721]

I thought it was common knowledge that all the animals in Looney Tunes were based on actual animals, and aren’t meant to represent people.

[scoundrelshebe]

You did all that but missed the point. Racism is kept alive through subtleties and pseudo-logic. The system conditions us to rationalize it as innocuous but it’s not.

Stop to ask yourself: How many of the other loony toons characters act like the actual animal they are? They are anthromorphic (humanized). And not only are they human like, they can also talk to humans. Taz DOES in fact sound like the animal. He sounds like an animal. And when he speaks, it’s broken af. It’s racially-coded.

You have all this knowledge clearly, but expertise is limited and affected by the frame of mind. The point is not that there is an actual animal that the character is based on. The point is that racism has justified and perpetuated itself through the dehumanization of Black people (among many other reasons). The notion that we are not quite as human as white, ‘normal’ people. So in this context it looks like humanizing animals except the Black one in a basic sense. It’s a racist caricature of the Tasmanian people via comparison to the animal. The ‘savage’ stereotype that has typically been used to justify brutalization.

You went out of your way to prove all that all about the animal… but that’s not the point at all. There is a much more nuanced conversation being had that, maybe, your pov wasn’t the one for.

tl;dr —> maybe hush and consider the original point.

Also in answer to my own question: Road Runner is the only other major Looney Toon character I can think of that is animalistic and can’t talk. And Road Runner is smart asf. So please add.

[anneone16621189]

Oh, Jesus fuck, shut up.