DDAL Racism and DDAL4-1 [Spoilers]

[Maxperson]

Clearly you don't live in a place with an HOA. I PUT A LEIN ON YOUR HOUSE BECAUSE YOU HUNG YOUR CLOTHES OUT TO DRY MUA HA HA HAHA.

Clearly we aren't talking about a situation where someone has agreed in advance to something. Your counterarguments are weak and generally have little to do with the discussion.

I'm beginning to wonder if you are here to debate in good faith.

 

[Maxperson]

Are you seriously equating a racist slur to house color?

Nope. There is no racist slur in this discussion. No racism other than fake game racism exists. I'm equating one self-fabricated offense with another self-fabricated offense.

"Well, I'm only being an towards like 5 people", you are STILL being an .

If you are going to alter your life every time 5 people are , your life is screwed and in a constant state of chaotic flux. Better to get those 5 people therapy so that they can better themselves and not be offended by non-offensive things.

 

[Maxperson]

There are parts of Northern Ireland and parts of Glasgow where painting your house orange absolutely would be considered a deliberate insult.

There are parts of the world where eating bacon will do the same thing. I'm not going to stop eating bacon here in America. If someone from that part of the world moves here to America, I'm still not going to stop eating bacon, or apologize for eating it, or feel bad for eating it. That person can feel offended all he wants. He chose to move to a country where people eat bacon, so it's on him to cope with his feelings on that subject.

 

[delericho]

There are parts of the world where eating bacon will do the same thing. I'm not going to stop eating bacon here in America.

WotC sell their product beyond America, so they need to be aware of things beyond the American horizon. And, yes, American companies that do business in other countries do indeed adapt their businesses to suit - you won't find bacon on the menu in McDonalds in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Maxperson]

WotC sell their product beyond America, so they need to be aware of things beyond the American horizon. And, yes, American companies that do business in other countries do indeed adapt their businesses to suit - you won't find bacon on the menu in McDonalds in Saudi Arabia.

And I would have no issue with localized changes to AL in those OTHER countries where the Romani more significant percentage of players.

 

[delericho]

And I would have no issue with localized changes to AL in those OTHER countries where the Romani more significant percentage of players.

I think you'll be out of luck on that one - I can't see WotC doing two different versions, and if there's only one, it's a fair bet they'll be going for the one that doesn't cause offense in Europe. (And the AL reps here have already indicated that they're re-editing the adventure in question.)

 

[kalani]

Alright, I am going to ask that one of the AL admins who moderates this forum to close this thread. It has served all useful purpose and I am now starting to get offended by comments which strike a personal nerve.... As a MTF transgender woman, I am a minority myself - and comments such as "why would I change for 5 people" are deeply offensive to myself, and anyone who is in a minority. It is the height of privileged attitude..

It is the same attitude which is why prejudice is still rampant in this society we live..... Because people are too selfish and unwilling to make even the slightest accommodation for those WHO GENUINELY NEED IT......The same arguments that are being made about the Romani minority could equally be applied to any minority.

Why should I care about equal rights and freedom from discrimination for for women, racial ethnicities, GLBTI, people of disability, people of different cultures/religions, etc... That is essentially the argument you are making.

I don't care how small the minority is - EVERYONE should be treated with the same respect and dignity, and be free from prejudice and discrimination. I don't care that Romani are only 0.36% of a population. In a population of 7.X billion people, that equates to approximately 25 million individuals world wide we should be mindful of (assuming the % is accurate), and respectful toward.

Even if it was just a single individual - we should still be respectful. There is never any excuse for being exclusionary, and prejudiced. Regardless of how YOU (in your privileged position) feels about a word - the word itself carries negative baggage toward the minority it was directed toward. It is therefore on THEM to say whether the word is ok or not.... NOT US!!! The same applies to every word that has been used in a pejorative fashion to one or more minorities.... It is up to them if they are willing to repurpose the word and make it ok to use.

For example - the term "Tranny" carries negative connotations towards my own minority. It is NOT OK to use this term in reference to us - regardless of how you feel about the word or whether you think it is a perfectly acceptable word with no baggage......Terms such as this are not about YOU. What you feel about them doesn't matter in the slightest. What the persecuted minority feels about the word however, is a completely different story.

As I understand it, the term "Gypsy" carries the same emotionally-charged connotation toward the Romani, as "Tranny" does to me and other trans-individuals (I am using a word relating to my own minority in an effort not to have my own privilege showing by referencing other negatively-charged words belonging to different minority groups, but the same message applies).

The Admins have expressly asked people to be respectful toward the Romani people and refrain from using this word. The admins have also apologized for the minor gaffe in editing 4-1, and are taking steps to correct this UNINTENTIONAL oversight.

Your privilege is showing... and at this point, I am asking this thread to be closed before someone says the wrong thing and causes tempers to flare.

 

[Pauper]

That is only true if you ignore what I have been saying. First huge flaw in your theory there.

No, the flaw in my theory was thinking I could have a discussion with someone who clearly isn't interested in one -- you're not only wrong, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Case in point:

Essentially, if I have an orange house and someone walks by who is offended by the color orange, that's on them.

Let's say that, for decades, orange was the color of houses of people considered sub-human. Anyone passing by could abuse the people living there, order them to do physical labor without pay, even kill them with zero repercussions. Then one day, society decided we weren't going to do that anymore, and as a sign that we were serious about that, we eliminated orange from the housing color palette.

Do you still think someone who lived in an orange house, or whose parents, grandparents, or other ancestors lived in an orange house and is aware of the history of what an orange house represents has no cause to be offended?

This is what you're doing when you equate orange houses and racism. They're not even remotely the same thing, and trying to equate them trivializes and minimizes an issue we're still struggling with today.

Now I get where you're coming from -- you think, 'well I didn't do any of that stuff, so why do I have to apologize for things I didn't do'? Others in this thread have already pointed out what that says about you as a person, so my repeating it isn't going to make it sink in.

This entire thread is pretty silly in my opinion.

On that point, I agree. The admins have already published one article about the issue, apologizing to those who were offended. One admin has even actively requested additional articles from those who feel the original article either didn't go far enough or didn't say what really needed to be said from an organizational standpoint. Coming into the thread and waving your arms around like a troll saying, "I don't see why this is such a big deal," is neither useful nor necessary. But then, perhaps I just answered my own question.

I mean, honestly, the point you seem to be trying to make here is that anybody should have the right to be an ass if they choose to be. Philosophically, that's a defensible position. Socially, that's crap, because just as people have the right to be asses, others have the right of freedom of association, which includes the right not to associate with asses.

Edit: Almost forgot, speaking of the right not to associate with asses -- *plonk*.

--
Pauper