Good. That's a nice first step. But providing a definition of something is not enough to prove its existence. Likewise, I can provided a definition of a unicorn, but that does not mean one exists for me to find one in the local forest.
Now, the base definition you provided is "a unified body of individuals". All other definitions stem from this one, indicated by the indentation (I'm sure you already know this). Thus, we should prove that a unified body of individuals can exist. I agree that we act as if we form unified bodies, but can any body of individuals truly be unified? Personally, I'm skeptical.
Then we must ask, is the Asian American community unified? My answer is "probably not," though I am open to evidence to the contrary.
This is a few pages back, but this is just so backwards and confused I morbidly want to know...
Do you believe any community exists?
Because a unified organization fo Asian Americans existed and made a group.... but you said that wasn't the community, that they just proved that they believed a community existed... so, does any community exist?
I live in a neighborhood, I am not unified with my neighbors, so no community.
I talk on this forum. I am not unified with everyone on this forum, so no community.
Using this definition literally would be the death of the concept of a community, despite our being social creatures being a scientific fact... so what are we even doing here?
I don't know why people have community groups. I don't know why people are flat Eathers or moonlanding deniers. For community groups, I might hypothesize that they serve a purpose of combating loneliness, isolation, and meaninglessness for those individuals. I have worthy justification for those propositions, however.
I'm not excuse racism because it's irrational. Irrationality is never excusable and should instead be rectified.
Wow. Yep. You deny the existence of communities at large. They are a conspiracy theory....
What a depressing way to see the world.
The answer to Bad Art is never to destroy Bad Art. It is sometimes Better Art, and it is always More Art.
I loved almost your entire post. However, this part I wanted to pull out.
I'm not going to repeat (for the dozenth time) that none of us want to see the book banned, instead I'm going to take this idea of destroying Bad Art and I want to ask, is even the most extreme position of the guy on Twitter destroying art?
Destruction in the literal sense is to make something gone. To remove it, delete it, and never let it see the light of day again.
But, would removing the 1st edition OA from DMs Guild do that? No. Not really. I showed early in this thread that it is trivially easy to find it for free on the internet.
And, remember what one of his statements was, that WoTC is still
selling the book. They are still making a profit, and at this point 50 years down the line, every sale is pure profit for that product. So, is it the destruction of art to stop selling merchandise?
A lot of old comics were sexist in a lot of ways. You can't go out and buy those. Is that because the comic's companies went and destroyed their old art? No. It is because they stopped selling and printing those comics and focused on new comics. They aren't bothering to reprint their old stuff, because it is bad and they don't want to spend the time and effort finding it and scanning it onto the internet.
And I think this is the part that makes me the most curious. I didn't even know 1st edition had this book. I certainly didn't know they sold it still. If, instead of a tweet storm and all this, WoTC had quietly removed the book when they put out there statement, would any of us have even noticed? Would it have been the destruction of art if they stopped selling a supplement to a version of the game that is played only by less than 1% of their player base?
We'll never know, but it makes me wonder. I also wonder if they donate the last two hundred sales, put a disclaimer, and make the pdf free to own, what would that do.
