Yesterday, we revealed some pages for our graphic novel adaptation of the first Adventure Zone arc, and received some criticism of the direction we went with for Taako’s coloring. This artwork reveal came some months after the first reveal of some of our characters, for which we also received criticism of our three leads, all of whom were white in these initial designs. Us and the graphic novel team realized that, yes, that is extremely bad, went back to the drawing board, and had several long discussions about how to best rectify this situation, resulting in the artwork revealed yesterday.
More or less all of the criticism we’ve received centers on Taako, whose skin is a pale blue color in these designs. What we’ve heard most is disappointment that Taako is not realized in these pages as a person of color — or, to be more specific, a Latinx or explicitly Mexican character. There was concern we had failed to follow through on an opportunity to get better representation for Latinx listeners, instead opting to take a safe route, and make Taako a fantasy color without any kind of real-world connection. Much of the criticism also focuses on how that color (or, to be more specific, green skin) has anti-semitic connotations.
This conversation was happening in certain corners of our fandom long before the graphic novel art reveal took place yesterday. We’ve heard criticism from some folks over our policy of not having canonical visual representations of any of our characters — a policy that has resulted in a genuinely humbling ocean of fan art, but also some instances of in-fighting between members of the community who take umbrage with one another’s disparate interpretations of these characters. Another criticism of that policy is that it inherently does not foster good representation, and in fact represents a noncommittal way of handling racial representation on this show.
Here’s the truth of the matter: I think all of this comes from this underlying friction between where The Adventure Zone and us, its creators, were when we started doing the podcast, and where we, the show, and you, the community, are at now.
“It was, in actuality, a dumb thing to do, compounded by
the spur of the moment joke that Taako’s quest was to invent the taco.
That was stupid, because the taco was invented by Mexican silver miners
and not a wizard who, in the first episode, I claim hailed from “New
Elfington.
“It was a spur of the moment goof, but one that I’ve
felt consistently guilty about, on some level, for years. I never
intended to be dismissive of a group, or a heritage, but that’s exactly
what I did.”
Guys, lemme just be real. As a mexican.
The white guilt dripping off of this post is far more insulting, offensive and condescending than any joke about an elf whose name sounds like taco who could also possibly be mexican.
Just, honestly. This whole post is so heavy with white guilt and feels more like it’s not just for your own sakes but for the sakes of your white fans who also wish to virtue signal and soothe their own senses of white guilt.
You feel GUILTY? FOR YEARS? AND WORRY IT’S DISMISSIVE? Over a “haha it sounds like taco, maybe he’ll invent the taco”? That’s just
no, guys
This is no different than when a bunch of white people tried to push for Speedy Gonzales to be changed and criticized for blah blah blah all while ignoring that the actual mexican people fucking love Speedy Gonzales.
You’re putting the validation of your own and the fandom’s white guilt and virtue signaling above everything else here and it shows.
Don’t apologize for being a bunch of white guys playing D&D. Don’t apologize for not being the perfect darling of representation, that’s not your responsibility or obligation no matter how popular it became.
As a mexican I would honestly just have your genuine from the heart goofs instead of your focus grouped “guilt tested, tumblr approved” hesitant goofs
all because of our failure to establish a solid foundation for these
characters and their identities when we started this show. And for that,
we’re so, earnestly, deeply sorry.
Just.. this stuff, guys. Come on. Look at what this is saying. “We’re deeply sorry we treated a fun, goofy thing like a fun, goofy thing instead of a statement on representation and society”
Who is that apology for? Who is it REALLY for?
And when a lot of the criticism is coming from other white people? Like, let’s not kid ourselves here, we both know the fandom, we both know the loud voices. It’s also just white people trying to virtue signal.
It’s more dismissive of how mexican people would feel than taco jokes.
…also, like, being totally real? Someone is always going to find a way to something is actually some kind of hateful bigoted thing one way or another. It doesn’t matter how much of a stretch, someone will find a way.
What’s important is whether you actually want to look at it and really think on whether or not it’s actually offensive
or if you just use it as fuel for your white guilt
From, A miffed mexican in the middle of… malifornia
mexican enough to have a
ñ
in their last name, anyway
Trump doesn’t give a fuck about his kid, never has and never will. He’s only useful to Trump as a prop, and this cynical ploy to exploit him should be called out for what it is.
The kid’s like 10. Fuck wrong with you guys? *kid is reportedly upset at seeing a graphic photo of what looks like his dad beheaded* Wil Wheaton: HAHA WHAT A STUPID BRAT
Other Nostril: They have taken the bridge and the second hall. We have barred the gates but cannot hold them for long. The ground shakes, drums… drums in the deep. We cannot get out. A shadow lurks in the dark. We can not get out… they are coming.
The U.S. House of Representatives just voted 231-189 to gut the FCC’s Internet privacy rules that prevent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast and Verizon from selling their customer’s personal information to advertisers without their consent. The measure already passed the Senate last week, so it will now head to the President’s desk for signing.
Yesterday, digital rights group Fight for the Future, known for organizing massive protests against SOPA and for net neutrality announced that they will put up billboards with the names of every member of Congress who voted to sell off their constituent’s privacy rights.
“Today Congress proved once again that they care more about the wishes of the corporations that fund their campaigns than they do about the safety and security of their constituents,” said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future.
“Gutting these privacy rules won’t just allow Internet Service Providers to spy on us and sell our personal information, it will also enable more unconstitutional mass government surveillance, and fundamentally undermine our cybersecurity by making our sensitive personal information vulnerable to hackers, identity thieves, and foreign governments,” she added.
The group released a draft mock-up of what the initial billboard – which will be unveiled in Washington, DC and in select districts – will look like, with the names of the 50 Senators who voted for the bill last week. Today they tweeted a mock-up of a billboard targeting Rep Marsha Blackburn, who has taken nearly $700,000 in contributions from telecom companies over her career.
“Congress should know by now that when you come for the Internet, the Internet comes for you,” Greer added, “these billboards are just the beginning. People from across the political spectrum are outraged, and every lawmaker who votes to take away our privacy will regret it come election day.”
By using the CRA to gut the FCC broadband privacy rules, lawmakers voted to allow ISPs to:
-Monitor and sell customer’s location data, search history, app usage, and browsing habits to advertisers without your permission
-Hijack customer’s search results, redirecting their traffic to paying third parties
-Insert ads into web pages that would otherwise not have them
Fight for the Future was instrumental in the massive grassroots campaign that successfully pushed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to enact the strongest net neutrality protections in US. history last year. They built the page BattleForTheNet.com, which was responsible for more than ¼ of all the net neutrality comments received by the FCC during its feedback process, and were behind the Internet Slowdown protest, which was supported by more than 40,000 websites including some of the largest on the Web like Kickstarter, Etsy, Netflix, and Tumblr.
The group also helped take the fight for net neutrality into the streets with creative protest campaigns like Occupy the FCC and the nationwide Internet Emergency protests.
Fight for the Future is best known for their role in the massive online protests against SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, and continues to organize many of the largest protests in the history of the Internet. Over the summer, they organized the high profile Rock Against the TPP tour featuring many celebrities and well known musicians. Learn more at FightFortheFuture.org
Spread this far and wide. We will NOT be a Big Brother state.
Hold the GOP to the same standards we hold the Dems and make them HIGH standards, because we deserve better than both parties’ Establishment have been plopping on our plates. We rejected them when we put Trump in office.
1. It had nothing to do with over-sexualization. Saying that it has to do with over-sexualization is a complete contradiction because, at that time, modesty was (and still is) valued over sexiness or rather, being scantily clad. It had nothing to do with sex, having sex, or sexuality. It was popular among teenagers because they basically did not want to be considered useless by 25 just because they weren’t married and didn’t have kids.
2. What was expected of them was that by the time they were 25, they were to be married, a fully functioning a perfect wife, with a child. Being the perfect house wife, being modest, etc. was basically the equivlant of having to be holding down a job, be married, etc. by 25 in American culture.
3. It had nothing to do with sexual submission or sexual slavery.
4. It doesn’t have anything about being silent abuse. In fact, even men were expected to stay silent on anything that happened in a family. Why? Because they valued privacy and looked down on getting involved in someone else’s problems. This is an issue, yes, but not something lolita was meant to fight against.
Stop looking at this from a western persepctive and get it through your thick skull that it has nothing to do with sexiness and stop saying the fashion was meant to fight against things that are, while issues, issues that the fashion was not created to make a statement against.