It's true the first images of the Drow I remember were very much '80s. I more closely associate them with Mötley Crüe or David Bowie, based on the pretty terrible art of that era. So why aren't they bringing up how they can be a way of queer-bashing. They're also a matriarchal society that treats males as less than, so why aren't they seen as an anti-feminist allegory. They also exist in a oppressive theocracy, so why not a screed on fundamentalist Christians or Islamophobia? You can write stories about all these things using the Drow, but don't treat them as real. The Drow will take on any trait the creator wants them to have, and by making this an issue you create the antecedent.
As you have illustrated by various examples all of this is arbitrary. One attribute of the drow (dark skin) has been arbitrarily chosen to make a bold and unsupported connection and demand change. Not necessarily change that would solve the perceived issue as the next quote shows.
But I could certainly see having some creepy sadistic albino looking Drow who remain classically evil and villainous, according to the most wicked of fascist colonialist slave trading archetypes that everyone loves to hate. You know like have them played by Magneto and Nurse Ratchet, but have the good drow from Menzo be like Idris and Zendaya or something, and they just wreck the whole previous program to the ground.
So making the 'evil' drow albinos would be better? Do you realize that in some parts of africa albinos are considered to be naturally born evil and capable of witchcraft? Albinos in northern congo are frequently butchered for the magical abilities ascribed to their meat. The meat is even exported to Tanzania, Kenya and other places. So let's make the wicked evil drow albinos. You have just shifted the whole issue to another group based on pigmentation, just one that usually gets ignored in western discourse on social justice.
It is quite clear (from explicit and implicit statements) that most participants of this thread are not just agnostic but fully atheist. Yet there is a metaphysical concept of universal good and evil assumed as real in almost every post. Where has this unambiguous "evil" that people are referring to ever been proven? How has the evilness of actions referred to as evil been proven by strict deduction based upon demonstrable truth? Nowhere.
For most people in the "west" a metaphysical remnant of absolute morality has been left over from a fading christian background. Projecting this notion of universal morals on to a fictional universe with its own metaphysics leads to a confusion of terms and boundaries of meaning.
Study i saw was not about hungry babies, it was experiments around playing and giving or not giving playthings to the other babies.
As i said theres several studies. And all try to checkup with different kind of experiments if altruistic behavior is what you are born with.
I remember that there were such studies involving (non edible) object sharing among chimpanzees. (For example
https://doi.org/10.5070/P4194009969) The young chimpanzees were quite willing to share with strangers. That doesn't stop them from tearing apart other chimpanzees later in life.
Bonobos share food but they really don't like to share tools or toys.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2018.1536As it is clearly not language that makes the sharing little chimpanzees turn into brutal conquerers later in life I wonder why we should assume that language is what creates 'bad' behaviour in human adults?
Please provide evidence that racial bias in humans is not already formed prior to language acquisition and that race-sensitive language is necessary in order to prevent the formation of racial bias after language comprehension has been developed.
I am not aware of any research providing clear evidence for that. If there is such research I would appreciate someone providing links or doi numbers for the studies.
