D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[Gardens & Goblins]

Nah. It's really not a hard question, and it's addressed within the paradox itself.


Again, nah. I can acknowledge that it's great when people go out and engage. Good on them.

The problem is that you're still insisting (a) moral equivalence of all positions, and (b) that the onus of changing misogyny and gatekeeping isn't on the misogynists and gatekeepers themselves.

Oh and (c) that being a misogynist is equally as aggressive as pointing out that someone a misogynist (or at the very least behaving like one).

See my clarification post. But hey, if we're going for sound bites, I'm insisting that it'd be lot quieter if folks did more and shouted less.


..but really, I'm challenging the action and questioning its effectiveness while attempting to highlight how such action can be detrimental and in conflict with promoting healthy, meaningful change*.

* ..for those at the back, this is a gross simplification, as one would expect from a line or so summary of numerous posts!

 

[Jester David]

To be fair - while it wasn't the worst movie released that month, it was a pretty terrible Ghostbusters movie. If it was its own thing, not connected to two very popular movies, I doubt expectations would have been so high. They were, for better or for worse, so the comparatively quality difference that more apparent. Hence nerd/fan rage!

But, of course, Ghostbusters 2 was also pretty bad. But people only remember the good bits.

And the hate and dislike for the film began before it was even released. Before there was even a trailer. Before anyone knew if it would be good, bad, or adequate.
And while it was a bad Ghostbuster movie, there have been three or four far far worse Transformer movies despite the many hugely popular TV series (Animated, Prime, Robots in Disguise, and even Rescue Bots were solid). And while other bad reboots (Robocop, Ninja Turtles, and the Mummy for example) were disliked, none received nearly the same vitriol as the rebooted Ghostbusters received (and continues to receive).

And when you looked at the ratings by demographic on IMDb, the disparity in scores between men and women was staggering, unlike any other comedy or action or geeky film.
Sexism absolutely played a part in the hate aimed at the film. That it wasn’t good just made it easier to veil.

 

[CleverNickName]

The problem is that you're still insisting (a) moral equivalence of all positions, and (b) that the onus of changing misogyny and gatekeeping isn't on the misogynists and gatekeepers themselves.

Oh and (c) that being a misogynist is equally as aggressive as pointing out that someone is a misogynist (or at the very least behaving like one).

I have never seen a complicated social problem explained so succinctly. Excellent points, Obryn.

 

[Afrodyte]

On the flip side, I see the same half-efforts with folks not willing to go the distance. And then expecting, as if by some miracle, folks to change. It becomes worse when others see such efforts and support through doing more of the same, until it becomes the norm - and anything beyond this norm is considered 'extraordinary'.

With regards to your second point - if folks are fighting in a war of words/displays action, then both groups are aggressors. The challenge is to step away from an 'victim / aggressor', a 'us vs them' mentality and approach it on an individual level, compassionately and with biases - to the best of our ability - acknowledged and checked.

With regards to worthy of engagement. How many healthy, constructive conversations have started with, 'You are wrong because...'?

And lastly, I admire your optimism. Perhaps sadly, from my experience, those that want to change will change for their own reasons - they're not the 'problem. Those that don't will simply feed on (what they perceive as) aggressor's attacks. At best, they go underground, and the only thing that have changed is that it becomes harder to keep tabs and attempts to encourage change through a healthy dialogue becomes that much harder.

Once again going against my better judgment to comment.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but: Why do y'all need all this coddling? For all the times I've heard people say that progressive-leaning people are special snowflakes looking for something to be offended about, I've seen more people in this thread alone get bent out of shape because Mearls did not word a tweet in precisely the language they would have used than I've seen people get upset at the behavior he's calling out.

Doesn't that strike anyone else as a bit telling about the nature of the problem?

 

[redrick]

To further this - and to clarify my own intent:

I'm not looking to argue whether calling something out as wrong is an action that should or should not be taken.

I'm hoping to nudge people into considering: What comes next?

So we've labelled all the 'bad ones*' and listed their crimes. What comes next? Execute them? Lock 'em up? Stash them on an island?

To my mind, realistically and practically, at least within my understanding of the ethical/moral space I would consider occupied by folks not prone to mass incarcerations or executions (!!), what comes next is - how to have them change for the better**. Note - have them change, not 'change them'. My limited professional experience and a fair amount of literature by folks much cleverer than I supports that change has to come from the person we wish to change. This would seem like a healthy way to begin efforts to reintegrate and realign the 'bad ones' with ...whichever social group/construct is in a position to do the reintegrating/realigning (!!).

Which is why I'm rather fond of efforts to move away from the 'us vs them' 'aggressor / victim***' dynamic in favour of a more constructive, less confrontational stance. Which typically starts with the intent of engaging in conversation whilst practicing compassion****.




*..for a specific meaning of 'bad one/s'!

** ..again, very very veeeery subjective, but hey!

*** ..which is not say there are never any victims or aggressors, obviously!

**** ..sure its not easy, but that's why folks practice!

It's kind of on them? (And by them I mean the misogynists?)

I am all for polite discourse and engagement with a heavy dose of empathy. I fundamentally believe that all people have at least a spark of good and decency in them. Without going too far down a religious path, it is a fundamental tenant of my faith. I would love to be able to go to every bigoted, prejudiced person, hear them out, and then convince them to be compassionate towards others through the strength of my own compassion. Really.

I also have seen that there are people who are, fundamentally, uninterested in change, and become huge sinks of compassionate discourse. There are plenty of folks who can be told, "hey, there's water out there, hit it up," and then, through the power of Google, they go find the water on their own. There are other folks who have to be constantly coaxed to the water by a never-ending stream of sugarcubes, who have to be gently lowered down to the water with encouragement the whole time. All of that so that this person will say, "Thank you for having a reasonable discussion. I can see that you might have a point," and then turn around and go right back to the same nonsense they were doing in the first place.

Ultimately, the burden has to be on us, all of us, to try and be better. If people can't do the work, at some point, they are going to get excluded from general society. What they do from there is up to them.

If you know so well how to reach people who are behaving in misogynist and exclusionary ways, why don't you go out there and reach them? Lord knows many people on this forum have tried before.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Once again going against my better judgment to comment.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but: Why do y'all need all this coddling? For all the times I've heard people say that progressive-leaning people are special snowflakes looking for something to be offended about, I've seen more people in this thread alone get bent out of shape because Mearls did not word a tweet in precisely the language they would have used than I've seen people get upset at the behavior he's calling out.

Doesn't that strike anyone else as a bit telling about the nature of the problem?

o-o What made you believe I need coddling? I give coddling professionally. Often big strong people!

And from my limited experience I like to perhaps kid myself into thinking I know what leads to healthy change and what doesn't. Honestly, it's not that hard (and yet sometimes, can seem impossible) and many folks can do it all by themselves!

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

It's kind of on them? (And by them I mean the misogynists?)

I am all for polite discourse and engagement with a heavy dose of empathy. I fundamentally believe that all people have at least a spark of good and decency in them. Without going too far down a religious path, it is a fundamental tenant of my faith. I would love to be able to go to every bigoted, prejudiced person, hear them out, and then convince them to be compassionate towards others through the strength of my own compassion. Really.

I also have seen that there are people who are, fundamentally, uninterested in change, and become huge sinks of compassionate discourse. There are plenty of folks who can be told, "hey, there's water out there, hit it up," and then, through the power of Google, they go find the water on their own. There are other folks who have to be constantly coaxed to the water by a never-ending stream of sugarcubes, who have to be gently lowered down to the water with encouragement the whole time. All of that so that this person will say, "Thank you for having a reasonable discussion. I can see that you might have a point," and then turn around and go right back to the same nonsense they were doing in the first place.

Ultimately, the burden has to be on us, all of us, to try and be better. If people can't do the work, at some point, they are going to get excluded from general society. What they do from there is up to them.

If you know so well how to reach people who are behaving in misogynist and exclusionary ways, why don't you go out there and reach them? Lord knows many people on this forum have tried before.

Sure it totally on them. And we can choose to let them get on with it in the hopes they actually, ya know.. do something about it or we can work with them to help them change for the better.

Of course, there's also the option of: Not bothering to do anything about it. Which is fine. I just wish people could do that and do it... quietly.

Oh folks are bothered by it? Great! Thanks for letting the world know! Whatcha gonna do about it? Other than make more noise/strong messages on social media?

And to be clear - its not just reasonable discussion we need, its constructive. There needs to be a clear intent and the patience and skill to help realise it. And yes, I happily engage with others whose behaviours I'm not fond of if I have the time and energy. And of course, typically*, if the pay me in cold.. hard.. money -.- !

*.. but not always.

 

[redrick]

Sure it totally on them. And we can choose to let them get on with it in the hopes they actually, ya know.. do something about it or we can work with them to help them change for the better.

Of course, there's also the option of: Not bothering to do anything about it. Which is fine. I just wish people could do that and do it... quietly.

Oh folks are bothered by it? Great! Thanks for letting the world know! Whatcha gonna do about it? Other than make more noise/strong messages on social media?

And to be clear - its not just reasonable discussion we need, its constructive. There needs to be a clear intent and the patience and skill to help realise it. And yes, I happily engage with others whose behaviours I'm not fond of if I have the time and energy. And of course, typically*, if the pay me in cold.. hard.. money -.- !

*.. but not always.

Strong statements are "bothering to do something about it." They just might not be bothering to change the mind of the person on the butt end of the statement.

Strong statements have the function of:
* Excluding bad actors from a community. "You gonna act that way? Great, we're done, you're not welcome here anymore." It doesn't always work, but sometimes it works. Maybe they'll go find another community to be a part of.
* Reminding people in the community that you have their back and their interests at heart. That, despite the actions of some, the people you want in your community are welcome there.

When a woman gets hired for a design position at Wizards, and there is an immediate vocal outpouring of speculation about her qualifications, many people see that and say, "I don't feel welcome in that community. That community is hostile to women." By coming and saying, "Nah, screw those sexist s, we don't want them around here and don't care what they think," Mearls is saying, "We do want you here, and we're willing to risk alienating potential customers to make that clear."

Could it backfire? Maybe. The asshats could be emboldened by the resistance and step up their campaign. Some people who were on the fence, "Maybe I should stop holding women to an absurd double standard and excluding them implicitly and explicitly from my community," may have gotten mad at Mike Mearls and said, "Screw that guy. I'll show him. I'm gonna go all in on hating women now." We'll keep our eyes out.

 

[DM Magic]

Finally made it through this cesspool of a thread and I just have one thing to say -- dudes with your dog whistle sexism and milquetoast misogyny, we see you. And so do the women in your life.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Strong statements are "bothering to do something about it." They just might not be bothering to change the mind of the person on the butt end of the statement.

Strong statements have the function of:
* Excluding bad actors from a community. "You gonna act that way? Great, we're done, you're not welcome here anymore." It doesn't always work, but sometimes it works. Maybe they'll go find another community to be a part of.
* Reminding people in the community that you have their back and their interests at heart. That, despite the actions of some, the people you want in your community are welcome there.

When a woman gets hired for a design position at Wizards, and there is an immediate vocal outpouring of speculation about her qualifications, many people see that and say, "I don't feel welcome in that community. That community is hostile to women." By coming and saying, "Nah, screw those sexist s, we don't want them around here and don't care what they think," Mearls is saying, "We do want you here, and we're willing to risk alienating potential customers to make that clear."

Could it backfire? Maybe. The asshats could be emboldened by the resistance and step up their campaign. Some people who were on the fence, "Maybe I should stop holding women to an absurd double standard and excluding them implicitly and explicitly from my community," may have gotten mad at Mike Mearls and said, "Screw that guy. I'll show him. I'm gonna go all in on hating women now." We'll keep our eyes out.

Oh aye, community support I can get behind! And no one should feel they have to do.. well, anything really, perhaps ideally. Strong statements can have their place and do a lot of good. And as I've repeatedly said, strong statements can also undermine the very intent behind the statements.

I guess, in a round about manner, that's what I'm driving at. All I'm driving at, really*. I think it was somewhere within the pages of Planescape where it was written, ''It's not what you do but how you do it.'' Personally, I believe its both.

* ..Well, that and a push for folks to consider how they might back up and build on such strong statements.