D&D General Why a PETITION: Stop Hasbro's hurtful content is a Bad Idea

[Justice and Rule]

I was speaking more generally from some of the comments I saw in that thread not the petition itself. In addition, I mentioned changed/altered which I feel would apply from the wording of the petition.

What's being changed/altered?

 

[Clint_L]

I point out that censorship of art is always framed as being done to protect vulnerable people, especially youth. When D&D was heavily challenged in the 1980s, it was under the guise of protecting young people from its pernicious, indeed devilish influence.

What makes me uncomfortable about all of these movements is that they tend to gather a momentum and soon all nuance is lost. Any kind of divergence is seen as a problem, so artists, and businesses distributing art, become increasingly cautious about anything that might cause controversy. This is not to say that we shouldn't be mindful of negative stereotypes or hurtful representations in what we speak or publish; of course we should. But we cannot become so paralyzed by fear of making someone uncomfortable that our art becomes anodyne.

At my school, D&D Club and Pride Club are almost the same thing; there is huge overlap in membership. I think this is because D&D allows players to inhabit different perspectives and express themselves freely. And those students are very aware of what is happening around them and more than capable of making assessments and choices for themselves. Trust me, they have no shortage of opinions!

If you are wondering, I definitely skew liberal. I mean, I'm a teacher at a liberal arts prep school in arguably the most liberal city in in a notably liberal country. I totally agree that this particular material uses historically problematic stereotypes and assumptions. I don't want to buy it, and I would not recommend it. I'm still not interested in the petition.

Edit: I want to emphasize that this is not to say that anyone in this discussion is the same as those calling for the ban on D&D in the 1980s. That was just being used as an example of how these movements can gather steam and become about moral righteousness in a way that shuts down dialogue. And if you disagree with everything I wrote, that is fine. I might be wrong. It happens a lot.

 

[Dax Doomslayer]

What's being changed/altered?

I would say read #7; #8 and #9. That would be changing/altering from how I read it.

 

[Irlo]

What's being changed/altered?

I think a lot of confusion arises from @Dungeonosophy using the term amend when the meaning is really to attach an addendum.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I point out that censorship of art is always framed as being done to protect vulnerable people, especially youth. When D&D was heavily challenged in the 1980s, it was under the guise of protecting young people from its pernicious, indeed devilish influence.

What makes me uncomfortable about all of these movements is that they tend to gather a momentum and soon all nuance is lost. Any kind of divergence is seen as a problem, so artists, and businesses distributing art, become increasingly cautious about anything that might cause controversy. This is not to say that we shouldn't be mindful of negative stereotypes or hurtful representations in what we speak or publish; of course we should. But we cannot become so paralyzed by fear of making someone uncomfortable that our art becomes anodyne.

At my school, D&D Club and Pride Club are almost the same thing; there is huge overlap in membership. I think this is because D&D allows players to inhabit different perspectives and express themselves freely. And those students are very aware of what is happening around them and more than capable of making assessments and choices for themselves. Trust me, they have no shortage of opinions!

But is anyone here being censored? Like, really, @Dungeonosophy isn't calling for any sort of censorship.

I would say read #7; #8 and #9. That would be changing/altering from how I read it.

#7 is not changing but asking for a new work to basically say "Well, this was just in-world propaganda, this is why they said this and this is how things actually are". That's really just them wanting stealth Mystara content because they are avowed Mystara fans.

#8 I think it just saying that because Thar said it was compatible with those settings, that the changes would also apply there. It's more like a "FR and GH don't have this racist stuff in it anymore" than actually changing anything.

#9 is just sort of putting it all together as an academic bundle.

 

[Maxperson]

Initially I read it this way, but I have since come around to the following (though I don't think it was well-articulated in the original post there).

Premises:
"I think WotC put objectionable, racist content in GAZ10"
"I think it's important to do SOMETHING about it."

Question for Discussion:
"What should I do about it? Here's a nine-point list I've come up with to start the discussion."

You may not agree with the premises, but that's the point of a "+" thread - to set a common "starting point" from which a rational discussion may advance. This is particularly needed when the premises may be subjective so that the thread can stay on-topic. Arguing over whether or not it's worth doing something about, or whether the content is objectionable isn't what the poster is looking to discuss. (Disclosure: I had no idea what a + thread was until this whole thing came up.)

Instead, it's figuring out the "what should I do about it?" piece. Discussing why the various points on the list are good/bad ideas (and why they are), whether it's worth dropping or adding points are all fine - they contribute to the discussion of "what should I do about it?" I imagine if eventually the ideas are shown to be "bad ideas" the discussion doesn't have to stop at "nothing" - instead the discussion could turn from "none of the original ideas you posted are good ones" to "let's find some new ideas that are good."

I suppose that is something of an echo chamber, but if you've already hashed out the subjective questions ("is this content bad" and "is it bad enough I think I should do something about it") there is something to be said to wanting to start threads where these don't have to be relitigated every time.

Over in the other thread I liked your post on the matter. I thought your points were very well thought out. I even referred to one of the things you said in my post, though I'd forgotten your name by then(ADHD for the lose!). It is absolute an echo chamber as it is set up, though, albeit a fairly mild one and not anywhere close to the worst that I've seen(politics wins that one).

 

[Justice and Rule]

It is absolute an echo chamber as it is set up, though, albeit a fairly mild one and not anywhere close to the worst that I've seen(politics wins that one).

I feel like that ignores Sigil's point: it's not about debating whether you should do something or not, but how to do something. By trying to say "What about nothing?" it turns the topic into something different.

 

[Dax Doomslayer]

#7 is not changing but asking for a new work to basically say "Well, this was just in-world propaganda, this is why they said this and this is how things actually are". That's really just them wanting stealth Mystara content because they are avowed Mystara fans.

#8 I think it just saying that because Thar said it was compatible with those settings, that the changes would also apply there. It's more like a "FR and GH don't have this racist stuff in it anymore" than actually changing anything.

#9 is just sort of putting it all together as an academic bundle.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation (other than maybe the Mystara part - lol), but that's OK. When I hear "reimagining" in Section 7 that's changing. Number 8 goes on to say "amendatory actions" which does mean change and Number 9 has "amended re-visioning" which clearly reads as changed. Irlo may be right as to the intent of maybe misusing "amend" and meaning "addendum" but that's not what is stated so my interpretation may be too literal.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation (other than maybe the Mystara part - lol), but that's OK. When I hear "reimagining" in Section 7 that's changing. Number 8 goes on to say "amendatory actions" which does mean change and Number 9 has "amended re-visioning" which clearly reads as changed. Irlo may be right as to the intent of maybe misusing "amend" and meaning "addendum" but that's not what is stated so my interpretation may be too literal.

The reimagining would obviously be a different work. The "amendatory actions" are that these changes apply to FR and GH because the original Thar book applied to them as well (in theory). It's a very legalistic approach, but the OP likes thoroughness. That's how I've viewed it and how I think they want to take it. But if you want, you can always go to the other thread and ask the OP, since they will respond to you.

 

[Maxperson]

I feel like that ignores Sigil's point: it's not about debating whether you should do something or not, but how to do something. By trying to say "What about nothing?" it turns the topic into something different.

It doesn't ignore it at all as he acknowledged at the end of his post that it was an echo chamber. I agree with him that it is a mild one, though. If you want to post in that thread you MUST agree that something else needs to be done beyond WotC's warning. You can't disagree, which makes it an echo chamber. As for @The Sigil's post over there that was linked here in the OP, I thought it was very well written and agreed with almost all of it.