Sorry @P-47 Thunderbolt . I quoted you then added on my thoughts and clarifications. I didn't make it clear that I agree with some of what you're saying. (Not all, obviously but it's led to an interesting conversation.) My post wasn't necessarily an indictment of your position, but building on it to make my point. Most of what I said wasn't intended as a direct response to you, but about the issue as a whole.

In a more direct response: Being offended by the use of a racist trope is perfectly warranted. It's harmful to play on those tropes when people are still harmed by them. Discrimination behind closed doors is still discrimination.

10 minutes ago, rogue_09 said:

Being offended by the use of a racist trope is perfectly warranted. It's harmful to play on those tropes when people are still harmed by them. Discrimination behind closed doors is still discrimination.

I agree, but at that point it's nobody else's business.

I think a) you're misinterpreting what I'm saying, and b) confusing racist tropes with putting on an accent. I will agree wholeheartedly about blackface, because its only intent was/is to offend and degrade. But if I want to have an NPC who talks like Boston cop, or an Ohio corn farmer, or a New York shopkeeper, I don't know what the problem is.

I'm reminded of Jon Stewart's famous rant about pizza (which includes a Star Wars reference, so...what the heck):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCgYMFtxUUw

Jon is Jewish, but he's channeling some mix of "New York Italian Mafia Jewish" stereotype. Is anybody seriously offended by this?

This is where I think the "woke police" don't get the difference.

31 minutes ago, rogue_09 said:

Sorry @P-47 Thunderbolt . I quoted you then added on my thoughts and clarifications. I didn't make it clear that I agree with some of what you're saying. (Not all, obviously but it's led to an interesting conversation.) My post wasn't necessarily an indictment of your position, but building on it to make my point. Most of what I said wasn't intended as a direct response to you, but about the issue as a whole.

I appreciate the clarification.

32 minutes ago, rogue_09 said:

In a more direct response: Being offended by the use of a racist trope is perfectly warranted. It's harmful to play on those tropes when people are still harmed by them. Discrimination behind closed doors is still discrimination.

"Being offended by the use of a racist trope" is lacking in context, and context is very important here. In the case of Watto having similarities to the Jewish merchant trope, I disagree. Can you adapt a trope into fiction in a way that crosses the line? Absolutely. If there was a species of rodent aliens who were formed entirely of anti-Jewish tropes, then yeah, I'd call it racist (at the very least tasteless, depending on intent) and say that's really inappropriate (the more points of similarity you have, the more potentially inappropriate). But a one-off alien who's different from the other appearances of his species, no. I don't think it's right to be offended.
Is it understandable that someone would be offended? Yes, I think it is, and said as much. That doesn't mean I agree with them or think they are correct.

There's also a distinction between "hurtful" and "harmful" that is important to draw. All too often, people give words far too much power over them. Something insulting or denigrating isn't necessarily harmful to you, even if it is hurtful. Inciteful words (a Hitler speech, for example) can have an effect by prompting others to act, but you have control over how the words themselves affect you . "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
To be more specific, if it was seen as acceptable to persecute Jews, and you show a character with similarities to a common and widely accepted anti-Semitic trope, it can be argued that you are playing into the prejudice, though the actual effect of something so inconsequential in the already existing morass is debatable.
If, on the other hand, anti-Semitism is roundly condemned by the culture at large, and you show a character with some similarities to a discarded and discredited anti-Semitic trope, then it isn't "harmful." Some might see it as "hurtful" (wrongly, in my opinion), but it isn't "harmful."
Practically nobody is going to look at Watto and go "Yeah, those Jews are really terrible." Most people aren't even going to make the connection to the trope. Those few that check both boxes already hate Jews anyway. Nobody ever committed a hate crime and said "I was inspired by Watto" or said something nasty to a Jew all because of how mean Watto was to Anakin.

Discrimination is "3. An act based on prejudice."
Prejudice is "1a. An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. 1b. A preconceived preference or idea; bias. 2. The act or state of holding (see above). 3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a group etc. 4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by (the above)."

So if we're being precise in our language, which is important in these conversations, it would not be discrimination. Neither, I would argue, is it prejudice. This is where intent becomes very important. To go back to the example of the rodent species, that's almost certainly intentionally racist. But if it wasn't, it still has the same effect. But when considering the person who had that idea, the verdict can be different (see "tasteless") based on their intent and their reaction to being confronted about it.

As for "discrimination behind closed doors" it again becomes a touchy issue that's heavily dependent on context.
In the case of a Watto-like situation, I would argue that it's not discrimination, and it is likely not prejudice either. If it does come from prejudice, then it is prejudice. If it doesn't, and there's no one there who would be bothered by it, and it doesn't prompt anyone there to harbor prejudiced feelings towards others or act out against others, then it has no ill effect.

Also, there are very few people whose inner thoughts regarding me I care about (that would be family, friends, and those I look up to or who I want to look up to me). If someone hated me because I'm a fighter plane, but never acted out on or said anything about that, I wouldn't know they hated me for being a fighter plane and I wouldn't care. It's when you start actually treating someone differently and allowing your prejudices to become discrimination that you run into a problem.
If behind closed doors, that person would rail to one of his friends that P-47s are the worst sort of fighter plane, are fat and ugly, and should never have been built, that still doesn't affect me until someone acts on it (" discrimination prejudice behind closed doors"). Now, words and actions are the overflow of the heart, but until someone does act, there is no harm done.
If everyone wore their thoughts on their sleeve, we'd be in really bad spot. Social media has given us a sample of what that would be like. Don't condemn people for their thoughts (or worse, your perception of their thoughts), we all have planks in our own eyes. One of the fundamental truths understood by Christianity, lacking in many other religions and philosophies, is that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked," and that "there is no one righteous, no, not one." It is an important thing to understand about yourself and about other people.

Some important premises so we're on the same page:
First:
There are three basic sorts of discrimination (sadly, I cannot remember for certain who laid these out, nor have I been able to dig up a list).
There's discrimination as a matter of differentiating between two things (right and wrong, which route to take, "discriminating tastes," etc.). This type of discrimination is a positive good, as it is necessary for survival and prosperity. Everybody does this constantly.
Then there's discrimination based on statistical differences of a group. If all you know of a person is their group and the group's statistics of _____, absent additional information you may base a related choice off of that. This type of discrimination is more controversial, but is not inherently wrong. It's a lack of information problem, not a moral problem.
Then there's discrimination based on prejudice, which is wrong. When I refer to discrimination here, I'm generally referring to this sort of discrimination unless I specify otherwise or it's clear from context.
Secondly:
Truth cannot be prejudiced, discriminatory, or offensive. If truth is offensive to certain people, it's a problem with them, not the truth.
Prejudice and discrimination are wrong because they are not true (see definitions). If it was true that "all X are Y," then choosing not to hire someone of X group because of Y is not wrong (that's simplistic, but basically correct). The problem is that "all X are Y" is not true, which means you are unfairly maligning those in group X who are not Y.

2 hours ago, whafrog said:

I agree, but at that point it's nobody else's business.

23 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Now, words and actions are the overflow of the heart, but until someone does act, there is no harm done.

2 hours ago, whafrog said:

I think a) you're misinterpreting what I'm saying, and b) confusing racist tropes with putting on an accent. I will agree wholeheartedly about blackface, because its only intent was/is to offend and degrade. But if I want to have an NPC who talks like Boston cop, or an Ohio corn farmer, or a New York shopkeeper, I don't know what the problem is.

Snipping these bits which are hopefully enough context for my point. As said, words matter and can have impact. Intent is important but impact has to be taken into consideration. Obviously none of us here are being overtly racist in our actions, but maybe tossing in some old negative stereotypes now and then. Hey, I do voices all the time! It plays with stereotypes, good and bad, and for the most part pretty much harmless. Like I said, if you're comfortable in your space to do it, no one's stopping you. But those of us who aren't impacted by these characters and performances aren't wrong to take a step back and think before putting them out there, even if it's to a few friends around the Zoom. Taking time to consider impact is always worthwhile, which is really the thesis of this thread.

Saying no harm is done until someone acts kinda passes the buck. It's not like we all have a secret anti-Semite in our games who is silently nodding, saying "Yeah, this is why I crusade against Jewish people". But everything comes from somewhere and the more we brush past it for the sake of our own entertainment and comfort, the more it can filter into the world and lead to harm being caused. This is obviously way beyond the scope of this thread, but it's a thought worth having.

My benchmark for a characterization, voice, what-have-you is: Would someone be hurt by this if I did it to their face? If the answer is yes, why do it at all? There are an infinite number of other ways to play something and I can do a little extra work to find that.

2 hours ago, whafrog said:

I'm reminded of Jon Stewart's famous rant about pizza (which includes a Star Wars reference, so...what the heck):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCgYMFtxUUw

Jon is Jewish, but he's channeling some mix of "New York Italian Mafia Jewish" stereotype. Is anybody seriously offended by this?

Haha! I love this bit. The difference here is the Jewish merchant is an old stereotype meant to demean Jews as miserly and untrustworthy. Stewart isn't punching down with his performance. Great example of your voices vs tropes point.

Honestly, Watto is a tough subject for this deeper conversation since he's only kinda wrong, y'know? Like we said, it wasn't the intent of the creators, but it did unconsciously play toward a trope that has been harmful in the past. Being an outlier for his species is tough too since most people will only have the context of the movie. Would I portray Watto in a game and play his voice? That's a hard "Maybe" for me. I probably would? But that's why giving it some thought it worth it instead of running in full steam.

Maybe I'm not making sense and I'm pushing this conversation way further than anyone intended. It seems like we mostly agree, just not to the degree of where/when offense can take place. But that's why I wanted to jump in so there was a few more viewpoints to consider.

5 minutes ago, rogue_09 said:

It seems like we mostly agree, just not to the degree of where/when offense can take place.

I agree with that assessment. We're more-or-less aligned on the big questions, but there are a few important details where we differ.

3 hours ago, whafrog said:

I will agree wholeheartedly about blackface, because its only intent was/is to offend and degrade.

Nobody tell the sheep in Scotland that they are offensive and degrading...

I guess that I wasn't paying attention to the more critical reactions towards TPM (and AotC), so some the previous comments have startled me.

With regard to Watto, I did not perceive him as a Jewish stereotype at all. For me, he was just a greedy merchant - one without a specific ethnic/cultural/religious association. "Greedy merchants" in general is a common stereotype. If I squinted a bit, maybe Watto was a greedy merchant/businessman with an "Italian mafioso" accent (I guess that this was his voice actor's influence).