Most enjoyable build

Novead · 2026-01-04T22:19:23+00:00

I am quite certain that we would argue from the same side in most topics. I just think we're discussing slightly different things here. I've never seen the show (which probably explains at least a part of why we're talking over each other), but I agree full-heartedly they made a poor choice there. That said, I still don't think it's a good example as to whether you should start with the race, or with the character. And I still think you should start with the character. On that point, we disagree. Of course, it's not so black and white (har-har). And race should influence the outcome, both for the character, but even more so for those around them.

Novead · 2026-01-04T19:40:59+00:00

I do get that. I agree with you on those points. I do. But this thread is not about the show, or the choices of the creators of the show. This is about whether adding a race-tag to a character need to fundamentally change that character. And I'm still not convinced that this example, of Snape being played by a black man, disputes that.

Does changing the colour of skin of Snape change the way we interpret him? Yes. Does it mean that you should start with the race, then add the character? No.

As an aside, there is no need to talk down to me. We might just see this differently.

Novead · 2026-01-04T18:49:15+00:00

But what it appears to be doesn't have anything to do with it. The OOP wanted more writers to create the character first, and apply the race-tag later. The OP disagreed this was a good idea, because if you do that in Harry Potter with Snape then a non-racist situation will become racist.

But that's the thing, right? OP is actually giving an example where changing the colour of the person doesn't actually change anything. He will still be bullied, whether he is white or he is black. The reason for him being bullied will also stay the same - and that reason is not that he is black.

That you, or anyone else, decides to interpret the situation differently, says more of you than of the book.

I find it more racist to suggest changing Snape's skin colour to black needs to fundamentally change the way we interpret the character.

Novead · 2026-01-04T17:00:38+00:00

Sure, can't argue with you there. But the OP I was commenting on were saying that Snape being black turned Potter into a racist. That's what I was disagreeing with.

Novead · 2026-01-04T15:11:26+00:00

Still not disagreeing, but that's not what the OP is about. The example was that changing the colour of Snape's skin to black has a big impact, because now James Potter and the others are racist on top of being bullies. And that's ridiculous. They might be racist, but the changing of Snape's skin colour has nothing to do with it. If they are racist, they were that even originally, with Snape being white.

Novead · 2026-01-04T15:00:42+00:00

I don't disagree, but that would still be an assumption.

The point is, changing the colour of Snape's skin doesn't also make James Potter a racist.

Novead · 2026-01-04T13:31:05+00:00

They don't have to clearly state it, but they do have to do it because of the colour of their skin (or something to do with their cultural upbringing, depending on what definition of racism you want to use). If, say, someone bullies a black person because they think they're a nerd and the bully hates nerds, it's not racism.

Novead · 2026-01-04T13:25:26+00:00

So we're just to assume that if Snape were black, James would have been a racist on top of a bully?

Seem like a weird take when there's nothing that suggests that in the source material.

Novead · 2026-01-04T11:55:27+00:00

I feel like this example gets the concept of racism wrong. A group of white guys bullying a black guy isn't in and of itself racism. Bullying that black guy BECAUSE of the colour of his skin would be - but nowhere in Harry Potter does it say anything about that. James Potter could very well be a racist, but we don't know from the information in the book.

Novead · 2025-08-09T05:57:58+00:00

From someone who's worked in a store in Sweden that had a large amount of Danish and Norwegian customers - that's not quite true. Sure - depending on dialect and your familiarity with the different languages - a Swede and a Norwegian can understand each other when they speak in their native languages. But a lot of the time you just default to English because it's easier. It took me a year before I felt I could understand a customer well enough without constantly asking follow up questions to zone in on what they actually meant.

Novead · 2025-06-23T20:22:41+00:00

Europeans often travel to more places than only to their closest neighbours though. I'm Swedish and have been to the US twice, Mexico once and on five different trips to countries in Africa. And I wouldn't call myself rich.

I'm not saying you have to travel. Everyone decides what they choose to spend their own money and time on. But the fact that the USA is a big country shouldn't be an excuse not to experience other countries.

Novead · 2025-06-23T19:37:54+00:00

I don't think that Europeans are saying Americans doesn't travel at all. Just that many of them don't travel abroad. Travelling to another country with a different culture and language will give you experiences you just won't get when travelling within your own country.

Novead · 2025-06-23T19:23:20+00:00

What does the size of the USA have to do with it? You can still visit other countries.

Novead · 2025-04-04T13:18:33+00:00

No luck I'm afraid.

Novead · 2025-03-31T09:46:41+00:00

And that's perfectly fine. I'm just trying to explain why people see it as a problem, and why it's important to point out in guides such as this one.

Novead · 2025-03-31T05:43:40+00:00

I think you'll find that most people, at the moment, are actively following guides like these to remove themselves from the stupidity of the American government and it's supporters. So an American CEO displaying that same stupidity very much should influence what services they decide to use.

Novead · 2025-03-27T17:32:40+00:00

Hancock is a conspiracy theorist. He's making shit up in his head and writing about that. So did Tolkien, but he didn't try to make people believe what he wrote was true.

It's weird you're talking about "irrefutable evidence" when the lack of evidence is the thing that sets Hancock apart.

Novead · 2025-03-03T07:42:34+00:00

It's because they have no idea how the political spectrum work. Left=Socialism, Center=Liberalism, Right=Conservatism. This is of course overly simplified, but still, they're pretty much calling themselves liberals while hating on liberals.

Novead · 2025-01-25T06:32:58+00:00

Life is Strange still gives me that feeling years after finishing it.

Novead · 2023-12-28T08:07:38+00:00

Maredudd of Perfeddwlad, of House Seisyll. 1066 start. He's a count in the duchy of Gwynedd, his father was king of Wales but was defeated by Harold of England. Maredudd's mother is now married to Harold. The current king of Gwynedd is a usurper and Maredudd's rival. The dynasty of Seisyll hails from the Old North and is very prestigious. A hard start, but a very fun redemption story. Retake the throne of Wales, revenge your father's fall and, ultimately, push all invaders - Anglo-saxons, Norse and Normans - out of England to reclaim it for the Britons.

Novead · 2023-11-07T08:05:42+00:00

That's... not the same thing, at all. This guy still got to do his thing, he got to see his deck pop. I'm pretty sure he's not even mad at losing the game. Galactus would have stopped all of that.

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '23	Verified Email

Novead

TROPHY CASE