D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[Sacrosanct]

This is just my observations and opinion of course, but I'd have a lot more sympathy for those people making arguments "I'm not being sexist, I just worry about the direction this new person will take the company" and "How do we know for sure they weren't hired just for PC reasons" and "let's scrutinize down to the smallest level of their qualifications" if those arguments weren't only made when a minority gets the job, and are never brought up when a white guy gets the job.

Maybe it's just me...

*I'm not saying that some people haven't made all those same arguments regardless of gender or race, but it certainly is a much lower number of people than when a minority does get hired, as evidenced by these threads and Reddit discussions.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

aaa

 

[ad_hoc]

So I'm a man. I've happened to benefit from the patriarchy that I live in on occasion, no one has ever called me on my "sexism", yet I think sexism is wrong, and I don't cry those things when equality is restored...

If you aren't sexist then you likely won't get called on being sexist. And if someone mistakenly calls you sexist you aren't likely to cry foul as it is easy enough to explain how you aren't sexist.

I don't see the problem.

(I would also argue that you constantly benefit from the patriarchy. Every second of every day.)

 

[epithet]

The are not implications I made though.
...
"White male privilege" is not a label. It's a behavior or scenario. That's your first problem. Your second problem is that you're ignoring the most common form of privilege: just being unaware. Someone doesn't have to be unable, or unwilling, or supportive of WP to have benefited from, or engage in WP behavior.
...
This is also nonsense. Although, your preconceptions certainly do illustrate why you're taking the positions you are. I've mentioned this in the other thread. I've actually given presentations on privilege. This is not something I am inexperienced in. And I'm telling you, when you question the qualifications for a woman hire when you do not for a male hire when all other circumstances are the same, that is quite literally an example of what male privilege is. This isn't a matter of opinion. So you trying to silence me based on your own inaccurate assumptions of my motivations and what WMP actually is, is not only not your place to do so, but is actively harmful. Ironically, it also allows you to keep enjoying the benefits that come with WMP because you're not one of the people like Kate who has to keep going through this utter nonsense literally every time you accomplish something or get hired.

Let's clear the air a bit. I am not trying to "silence" you. In fact, I have been generally supportive of most of the points you've made in this thread. I'm only taking issue with some of your recent characterizations.

I think it is telling that you've "given presentations on privilege." That suggests that you're steeped in the terminology and its philosophical underpinnings that you have perhaps begun using them as a shorthand that doesn't faithfully translate to the rest of us. I'm telling you that when you used "white male privilege" in responding to another poster upthread, it came across - to me - as a label, and as dismissive. I'm not saying you meant it that way, I'm saying it came across that way (to me.)

You might use the term to describe a person's behavior, but it sounds like a label you apply to that person. Sort of like when I call someone an idiot in traffic--I'm talking about their behavior in that moment, but I'm sure it would sound like a general indictment of their cognitive ability to anyone overhearing me. I try, with mixed results, to be mindful of how I come across vs the meaning I intend, the subtext vs the text and all that. I try, and often fail, to avoid seeming smug and condescending. I'm absolutely not trying to silence you, but I am asking you to consider that some of your terminology, in this climate of identity politics, might be counterproductive.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

aaa

 

[redrick]

If you aren't sexist then you likely won't get called on being sexist. And if someone mistakenly calls you sexist you aren't likely to cry foul as it is easy enough to explain how you aren't sexist.

I don't see the problem.

(I would also argue that you constantly benefit from the patriarchy. Every second of every day.)

Hmm, I don't know that I agree with this characterization.

I think it's less about "are you or aren't you sexist" and more about "are you or aren't you willing to be confronted with that?"

I consider myself a feminist. I work hard to not be sexist in my actions and choices. But I still do things, say things, that are sexist. Many of the people in this thread (possibly myself included!), while arguing against sexism, have said things that struck me as a little sexist.

Being called a sexist, or, as is mostly the case, being told that something I did was sexist, is like being told my fly is down, or that I stink. It's mortifying. It hurts. And I think the instinct, for me, at least, and for a lot of people I know, is to get defensive. "I'm not sexist!" But, really, of course, the response should be to go find the nearest shower, to zip my fly up, to think about what I did that was sexist, racist, discriminatory, and take that as an opportunity to learn.

That's the invitation I would make to people. Being told to "check your privilege" as the phrase goes, is like being told to check your fly. It's embarrassing, but it's, ultimately, an opportunity. Or, hey, stare that jerk down and keep walking around with your fly open for all the world to see. It's a free country, gosh darnit!

 

[jgsugden]

...
Do you see the problem?

Yes. Of course I do. I stated the problem. You didn't see it, apparently. You even just said, "I don't see the problem."

Do you care to count the number of times these types of arguments are plastered on threads? Do you see the problem with them? They lack depth. They lack realism. They're straw men arguments meant to self bolster, but lack real sophistication.

Which approach is actually more likely to result in loss of life: Telling Nazis that we won't tolerate them and are willing to START a fight with them, or telling them we disagree with their view and want to demonstrate a better way?

As for the last hypothetical - You understand why this is a shallow hypothetical, right? And why they very issues that concern you would make those responses extremely uncommon? And if they did occur as you state, you might want to consider all the different ways that each person might feel in response to the answers. Asking if I see "the" problem ignores the wide array of problems there.

 

[epithet]

"Firing" them is the only appropriate response.

We just shouldn't put up with abusers. There is no middle ground.

Here is the example to illustrate the point. It used to be just an example but in recent times is actually relevant again:

Nazis want to exterminate all non-white people.
Non-white people don't want to be exterminated.
Let's exterminate half of the non-white people so that we can all get along.

The appropriate response is to just say no. To tell them that they aren't welcome.

At best you are grossly uninformed. The reality is that gender is always an issue. It's just that it isn't an issue to cis men until they are called on their sexism. Men don't see gender as an issue as long as they are benefiting from the patriarchy that they live in. Once those privileges are threatened then they cry 'reverse sexism' and 'not all men'.

Here's another illustration:

There are 3 people. A white man, A white woman, and a black woman.

They are asked to describe what they are.

The white man says: "I'm a person."
The white woman says: "I'm a woman."
The black woman says: "I'm a black woman."

Do you see the problem?

Abusers?

So, you start off equating challenging a new hire's geek credentials for ostensibly sexist motives with, it seems, rapists, stalkers, wife-beaters, and that ilk.

Then, you take it up to genocidal nazis!

I definitely sympathise with this lady that WotC hired, and it certainly sounds like she got treated unfairly by a few online forums. That was bad. It should be noted, however, that her job and her safety have never actually been (as far as I've heard) threatened, so... not the worst case scenario, to be sure. Not nazis. Nazi's would be a lot worse.

I am convinced that gender is absolutely always an issue to you. For the rest of us, I think we can look past it an awful lot of the time.

I live in a predominantly black neighborhood. I have black family members, black drinking buddies, a ton of hispanic friends and family, and I interact with people from all over the world. I know plenty of people whose identity is all wrapped up in their gender or race, I'll admit... but I know a lot more who are much more focussed on what they do and what they love in life. Not everyone is as wrapped up in demographic identity as you seem to think.

I think I do, in fact, see the problem. The problem is way, way too many people caught up in an absolutist, moralist perspective that segregates the world into people who agree and people who don't, and are wrong, and must be treated as "other" because they are bad, bad, bad. You seem to be caught up in that mindset every bit as much as some troll who can't accept a woman as a D&D product designer.

There are no nazis here.

 

[jgsugden]

I felt like it implied it, but I wanted to be sure. I also think the bulk of your post was about defending complex rules and deep lore, neither of which is really the issue, which is why I didn’t comment on that.

Read the tweet again. Ask what connection he draws, and then ask what it says about people that want a strategy focus over lore focus. Then read my argument again. Then mail me a check for $320. (Worth a shot).

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Abusers?

So, you start off equating challenging a new hire's geek credentials for ostensibly sexist motives with, it seems, rapists, stalkers, wife-beaters, and that ilk.

Then, you take it up to genocidal nazis!

I definitely sympathise with this lady that WotC hired, and it certainly sounds like she got treated unfairly by a few online forums. That was bad. It should be noted, however, that her job and her safety have never actually been (as far as I've heard) threatened, so... not the worst case scenario, to be sure. Not nazis. Nazi's would be a lot worse.

I am convinced that gender is absolutely always an issue to you. For the rest of us, I think we can look past it an awful lot of the time.

I live in a predominantly black neighborhood. I have black family members, black drinking buddies, a ton of hispanic friends and family, and I interact with people from all over the world. I know plenty of people whose identity is all wrapped up in their gender or race, I'll admit... but I know a lot more who are much more focussed on what they do and what they love in life. Not everyone is as wrapped up in demographic identity as you seem to think.

I think I do, in fact, see the problem. The problem is way, way too many people caught up in an absolutist, moralist perspective that segregates the world into people who agree and people who don't, and are wrong, and must be treated as "other" because they are bad, bad, bad. You seem to be caught up in that mindset every bit as much as some troll who can't accept a woman as a D&D product designer.

There are no nazis here.

Remember the good old days of Goodwin's Law? Now it seems like its easiest to call people Nazis or compare them to Nazis and you don't bother discussing with a Nazi after all, you just silence them. The bar for being a Nazi is so dang low these days.