Weird Orgy comment on DnD Beyond Home Page Video

[epithet]

...
I am sorry you were triggered by this. Nobody was looking to make you emotional and upset over this issue

By the way, from my perspective almost all the moralizing in this thread is from folks like you claiming they know what's best for other people's kids and that parents are wrong to think they should mention this sort of issue to begin with. I mean, know you don't think you're moralizing...but you are. None of those parents were looking to advise you on how best to raise your kids. That was all you guys. All they asked for was properly labelled stuff so they could make that decision for their family. Nobody asked what you guys thought of their private decisions concerning their family, but you and several people who are like-minded decided to tell "those moralizers" (without noticing the irony in what you're doing) that they're "wrong" in their choices.

What the hell?

I suppose you think you were being funny and clever there, but to conflate being annoyed with the modern drama of snowflakes being "triggered" and getting "emotional and upset" did manage to induce an eye-roll.

The OP posted an opinion (the use of the word "orgy" was inappropriate and naughty) to start this thread, meaning that he was inviting feedback from the comentariate. My response was, in essence, that if a kid is old enough to watch YouTube videos that kid is old enough to have an honest, if vague, explanation of the meaning of the word "orgy" to put the comment in context. It should take more than an offhand use of the word "orgy" to flag a video as being "adult content." And yes, when you create a thread about your "private decisions concerning [your] family," you are explicitly asking what "[us] guys" think about it.

My comment was not moralizing, but if you would like me to I'm sure I can come up with some material to get sanctimonious about. Oh, I know! Take a seat, I'm about to get righteous about companies using Twitter as an official and sometimes exclusive conduit for communication with their customers...

Where are you going?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Yeah that was kind of out there Mistwell.

 

[MNblockhead]

If your kids have listened to gangsta rap, they've already heard this and worse.

If your kids do not listen to gangsta rap, then you (and your eardrums) are fortunate.

P.S. I think the average level of protectiveness has dropped to 'almost non-existent' and more protectiveness of kids would be a benefit to society.

Music is a good comparison actually.

There is a lot of gangster rap that I like. I may not like the anti-cop and misogynist language in a lot of it, but I think there can be value in art representing awful things. I also like blues. Listen to Blind Wille McTell's "A to Z Blues" (the 1920s / 1930s) and "Shave 'Em Dry" by Lucille Bogan (1933) to see that there have always been artists to use shocking themes in their art.

But I don't let my kids listen to this yet.

I'll let them use certain pop streams that will occasionally have some cussing, though my wife will often make them change the "channel" to something more sanitized. There is, however, music, movies, and other entertainment that I prefer to control their exposure to until they are more mature. Some of my content-gate decisions are based on age and common mores and others are based on what I know about my kids individual personalities and maturity levels. As others have said in this discussion, it is a parent's responsibility.

But I appreciate it when content distributors help. That's why I appreciate ratings and movies and music. If a movie is PG-13, I may read some reviews before deciding whether to let my kids see it, but I probably would not bother with a rated G movie.

And, you know, DnD Beyond is PG 13 (you have to be 13 to have an account). I could see the same joke being made in a PG 13 movie. Well, it might make some parents upset, but if you feel that a joke like this is too much but that watching kids kill each other in the Hunger Games is a-okay, you may need to revisit your priorities. If I see a PG 13 rating, I'm likely going to read up on it before allowing my kids to see it and maybe decide to not allow them to see it. I should have thought more about that when allowing my son to create an account. I'm not going not allow him to use DnD Beyond of this, but it was a reminder that I may need to pay attention to the content posted to the site.

 

[Mistwell]

What the hell?

I suppose you think you were being funny and clever there, but to conflate being annoyed with the modern drama of snowflakes being "triggered" and getting "emotional and upset" did manage to induce an eye-roll.

The OP posted an opinion (the use of the word "orgy" was inappropriate and naughty) to start this thread, meaning that he was inviting feedback from the comentariate. My response was, in essence, that if a kid is old enough to watch YouTube videos that kid is old enough to have an honest, if vague, explanation of the meaning of the word "orgy" to put the comment in context.

First, I'd like to ask an honest question. Are you a parent to younger kids? Because, it would be helpful to understand your context.

As to what you just said, not quite. First, he didn't say it was naughty. In fact, there is not a single "moralizing" type word in the entire original post. The closest he comes is calling it "strange" (and I think he means "Strange given the age limitations"). And then he says it's inappropriate but specifically because of the DnD Beyond age listings context.

And YouTube works that way - they list the age limits for their videos. "Old enough to watch YouTube" could mean literally just watching Sesame Street on Youtube. I mentioned that earlier. It's fair that if someone is not a parent of a young child right now they might not be aware that's how YouTube works these days - but that is how it works these days. You can now control what type of content is accessed by an account, and there is a difference between "Content listed as safe for kids" and "Content listed as for adults" and you can be old enough for the kids labelled stuff but not the adult labelled stuff.

It should take more than an offhand use of the word "orgy" to flag a video as being "adult content."

But it doesn't. I mean, I appreciate if you ran YouTube that you would decide differently, but that's not their standards. And frankly, it wouldn't be mine either. That's not moralizing - content intended for kids is supposed to be "of a non-sexual nature" such that you wouldn't encounter content that would tend to elicit the "Mommy/Daddy, what does [named sex act] mean?".

It's not moralizing to say that a YouTube video specifically labelled as OK for kids should not be the thing that tends to trigger conversations regarding sex acts. It's not that parents should not discuss sex topics with kids - it's that random videos labelled as kid-appropriate should not be the places which start those conversations. If you want a video to start those conversations, there are videos about sex ed you can seek out. But just as you wouldn't expect Sofia the First to raise the topic of a sex act, you wouldn't expect a video labelled as OK for Kids to raise it either. Which is why the OP said it was "strange" and not "naughty".

And yes, when you create a thread about your "private decisions concerning [your] family," you are explicitly asking what "[us] guys" think about it.

But he didn't. He said it was STRANGE to find that in those videos, GIVEN THE AGE NOTATIONS for the topic. He never asked the question of "Hey what do you guys think of my decision to not discuss sexual topics with my kids". I mean, given he never even mentions the ages of his kids, I think it's pretty obvious that is not the conversation he was starting. He was asking about "IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS KIND OF VIDEO".

My comment was not moralizing, but if you would like me to I'm sure I can come up with some material to get sanctimonious about. Oh, I know! Take a seat, I'm about to get righteous about companies using Twitter as an official and sometimes exclusive conduit for communication with their customers...

It looked like moralizing to me. Here are the words you used, "If you are hell-bent on keeping your kids insulated from everything that might encourage a naughty thought, then you shouldn't let them watch YouTube videos, ever."

He never said or implied he wanted to insulate his kids from everything that might encourage a naughty thought, did he. That was you condemning him based on what you imagine he's thinking I guess? Which sure sounds like moralizing.

He said he didn't want to raise those topics WITH A D&D VIDEO LABELLED AS OK FOR KIDS. You see the difference between that and "insulate from everything that might encourage a naughty thought [in the world]." right?

And the idea that his kids should not ever be able to watch a video like Sophia the First because you think he must go to some extreme of cutting out all YouTube videos if he's going to dare take a position on the appropriateness of content in D&D videos is absurd - the kind of absurd you get from moralizing when no moralizing is being solicited. You appear to have a moral objection to his decisions, rather than a purely amoral one. As if his decision offends your sensibilities about right and wrong...IE moralizing.

Don't you think they should set an "adult" label on content that contains adult material so that they let parents know in advance that it contains adult material? Because it seems WOTC thinks just that. They agreed with the OP. They changed the label on the video to reflect that. Are they morally objectionable in your world view now too?

Yeah that was kind of out there Mistwell.

Did you have a reason why you disagree, or shall I consult my crystal ball?

 

[MNblockhead]

It was a dumb example to use, and she got teased about her media training for it, but I can’t fault her for accidentally using a dumb example when I mess up my examples all the time. Who hasn’t done public speaking and mentally kicked themselves for saying something weird on accident?

Exactly. I'm guessing Tod thought it was better to leave it in, because it was funny, even though she asked for him to remove it and apparently thought he did. She learned a valuable lesson about doing interviews.

I feel fortunate that I came of age before social media. I'm embarrassed about some of the things I've written in high school and college newspapers, it is scary to think about what I may have said in social media that would haunt me for decades.

And, really, for nearly all of the expected audience, there was nothing wrong with the comment. She certainly wasn't thinking that this was content kids might consume.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Did you have a reason why you disagree, or shall I consult my crystal ball?

I just think it was harsh to call them triggered.

 

[Mistwell]

I just think it was harsh to call them triggered.

Ha! Oh, that part was just a joke. He wasn't triggered. It was that to me it looked like he was trying to be the tough guy, telling someone else they were being overly sensitive to a minor thing, while he seemed to be the one overreacting to someone else's fairly calm reaction. Sorry if the smiley didn't make that clear it was intended as a joke.

 

[MNblockhead]

Two things-

First, gangster rap hasn't been a thing for years. And years.

Okay, and that's relevant how? The other example was ragtime and blues songs from the 20s and 30s. I was responding to another post that specifically mentioned gangster rap. Whether not gangster rap is still a "thing," it is a readily-understood reference to content that many parents would object to their kids being exposed to. You could also say deathcore, black metal, or porno grind. The current popularity of the genre is not particularly relevant.

Second, it's not just about curse words in music. Seriously, think about "pop" songs as varies as Afternoon Delight, Hey Nineteen, Escape (the Pina Colada Song) ... you know, the types of songs you might hear in a Walgreens.

I never said it was about curse words. I actually used curse words as an example of something that doesn't bother me too much. It is the content and message that concerns me more. And there is a difference. You may have pop songs in a Walgreens that allude to sex or violence, but they are not explicit or graphic. I remember, however, going into stores in Taiwan where they will play songs that explicitly describe blow jobs and other sex acts, because the owners and customers are not English speakers and don't realize what they were playing. You would not get away with playing that music in a Walgreens pretty much anywhere in the U.S. (and I guess in most any English-speaking country).

I'd rather have to briefly explain an orgy than explain the majority of pop music from any decade.

Okay, I just don't see it coming up in most music played in public places where young children are expected to be around. Innuendo generally goes over kids heads. You can easily explain away "pour some sugar on me" if the question even comes up. "What does 'orgy' mean" is a different thing entirely.

All of this, however, misses the point that I was simply stating that we have rating systems in place to help parents make decisions regarding the music their kids have access to. It is much more difficult on the Internet. You simply have to take a more active roll in monitoring and controlling your kids' on-line activity. At least Curse makes this easier by having an age requirement for the site. The question was solely whether that was an appropriate video for children as young as 13. From most of the responses here, the answer seems to be sure. I'm not sure I agree, but I do understand that PG-13 is a gray area and you will have to exercise, you know, "parental guidance."

 

[Chaosmancer]

And YouTube works that way - they list the age limits for their videos. "Old enough to watch YouTube" could mean literally just watching Sesame Street on Youtube. I mentioned that earlier. It's fair that if someone is not a parent of a young child right now they might not be aware that's how YouTube works these days - but that is how it works these days. You can now control what type of content is accessed by an account, and there is a difference between "Content listed as safe for kids" and "Content listed as for adults" and you can be old enough for the kids labelled stuff but not the adult labelled stuff.

But it doesn't. I mean, I appreciate if you ran YouTube that you would decide differently, but that's not their standards. And frankly, it wouldn't be mine either. That's not moralizing - content intended for kids is supposed to be "of a non-sexual nature" such that you wouldn't encounter content that would tend to elicit the "Mommy/Daddy, what does [named sex act] mean?".

It's not moralizing to say that a YouTube video specifically labelled as OK for kids should not be the thing that tends to trigger conversations regarding sex acts. It's not that parents should not discuss sex topics with kids - it's that random videos labelled as kid-appropriate should not be the places which start those conversations. If you want a video to start those conversations, there are videos about sex ed you can seek out. But just as you wouldn't expect Sofia the First to raise the topic of a sex act, you wouldn't expect a video labelled as OK for Kids to raise it either. Which is why the OP said it was "strange" and not "naughty".

I'm not entirely sure I'm following why Youtube and there settings are relevant here.

As I understand the situation, the video in question was found on the home page of the D&D Beyond website, and part of the discussion is that the OP has paid for that site and it's content.

To my mind, even if the video was somehow tagged as less child friendly, if the site sees that you're paying a subscription fee to their site... isn't it fair to assume the individual is older, like 16, since it is unlikely that someone under-aged has the money to purchase a subscription service.

I know the DnD Beyond stuff is also on Youtube, but from hearing about this just from these comments, it seems to me that there are enough different points to consider here that it makes sense something slipped through.

And honestly, toward the OP, as I understand DnD Beyond, it is a consolidation of a lot of DnD content. If you already feel the need to monitor your children's access to the PHB and MM (Which depending on their age you most certainly should) then I don't understand why you didn't realize that you should also monitor Beyond, as it is the PHB, MM, adventure paths, and previews for new material. Is the Beyond content really so often more child friendly than the books?