D&D General (Anecdotal) conversations with Asian gamers on some problems they currently face in the D&D world of RPG gaming

[Eric V]

I don't think you are really engaging with the book, then, or, at least, not with it in quite the same way. That's all I've got.

Not much, then.

Thanks for your concern, but me and the other college profs who chose this book as our discussion topic have engaged with it just fine. You using it here in the conversation around OA is simply a bad fit.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

I have clearly made that distinction multiple times in this thread. I brought in government censorship specially as an example to illustrate that censorship isn't simply about stopping people from speaking, but also preventing people from accessing material too.

I only want to add that the problem here is to remove a book under pressure. Every other more general act of removal is not in topic and it is only a rethorical strategy of moving the topic from peculiar to general. And even if is SELF censorship this not move the problem a bit.

 

[Eric V]

Either that, or we can use Eric V's Offense-o-meter, measure the objective level of offense of every product

I don't believe I have mentioned an "Offense-o-meter" especially since I don't think there can be a mathematical measure of offense.

I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth, please and thank you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I only want to add that the problem here is to remove a book under pressure. Every other more general act of removal is not in topic and it is only a rethorical strategy of moving the topic from peculiar to general. And even if is SELF censorship this not move the problem a bit.

Except in this case, I think going to the general was important because I wanted to illustrate that access matters. If we can see how it matters with government censorship, that makes it a little more clear why it might matter in other cases too. The point being that the moral objection to censorship doesn't just arise because someone has been stopped from saying something, but because people have been denied access to what they say or wanted to say. Access is the other side of the equation. I could have discussed it in the context of pressure censorship. I just thought the concept was more clearly illustrated this way.

 

[Umbran]

Why are you entitled to read speeches by Martin Luther King Jr?

I'm not.

Why are you entitled to read Fahrenheit 451 or Portnoy's Complaint?

Again, I'm not. I rest assured the government cannot act to remove these works, but there is absolutely no guarantee that any private concern publishes them.

I think it boils down to people want to have the right to evaluate for themselves if they should be able to read this material or not.

That's nice. You want to have that right. Go ahead and want, it isn't one accorded to you by the law. Until the thing goes into the public domain, you have no such right.

You want to claim a right that you don't really have, and you suggest it is someone else who isn't holding up their end of the moral bargain? There's reasons why you do not have the right to another person's work, or to their property. Think on that for a bit.

In the end - for the past few years you've had the privilege (not the right, the privilege) to buy the pdf pretty much whenever you wanted. Removal of privilege feels like injustice, but it isn't.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Not much, then.

Thanks for your concern, but me and the other college profs who chose this book as our discussion topic have engaged with it just fine. You using it here in the conversation around OA is simply a bad fit.

I explained this already; I do appreciate your clarification that you are using it in a college course apparently?

I mean... okay then. On the internet, no one knows you're a dog, but they tend to get suspicious when you keep typing "Bark bark bark."

I would recommend using a book that is less likely to lead people to suggest that there is an objective measure of offense, but again, we must be reading different editions. Mine was undoubtedly the one that is not annotated for college courses and contained additional "course material" apparently orthogonal (or, perhaps, in contradiction) to the thesis of the book.

But what if I'm wrong? Well, I will have to live in the terror of not having to learn that mistake from you.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

So, I was watching a foodie-show, "Taste the Nation" a couple nights ago, and the episode title was "What is Chop Suey Anyway?" And it noted that the cultural experience of Chinese-Americans is completely different from the cultural experience of Chinese folks living in mainland China. Chinese-Americans live embedded in a culture with a dominant caucasian majority, while those in mainland China don't. Different experiences and perspectives, so one cannot be used as a proxy for the other.

This has been one of my main points here. The need to parse what the issue is and with who while still listening because the feelings being expressed are the honest opinions of the people expressing them.

I hear "Asians" and wonder "which ones?". There are Asians in Asia and outside of Asia. There are a bunch of countries and cultures there and many don't like each other. Inside some countries, there are plenty that don't like each other. People in a majority feel and act different than people in a minority. Some Asians have been in the USA and other places for generations. Some held onto their family traditions, others did not.

Does my experience and circumstance count or get ignored? I lived in Singapore and China for a total of 8 years. I often worked in Japan. I gamed there. That enough? Married to a Chinese woman from Nanjing (where Japanese are really unpopular). Have a 1/2 Chinese son. That enough, am I enough Asian that I can advocate and argue?

I even have to overcome my own personal knee jerk reactions. I am originally from Montreal and now some Toronto people are lecturing me from some moral high ground? Even though my family is English speaking, I identify as a Quebecois and a Canadian. But to some where I am from, I will never truly belong because of my native language. Is that how Asian Americans feel when someone asks them where they are from and they don't mean what state or city? If I am sensitive to Toronto, maybe that is the same as Oriental bothering others?

Should I care about what Zeb Cook thinks? He is active and on the internet, he has to see some of the accusations that his book is racist.

I crunched all that and my conclusion is that a book made today should be different. And maybe is not needed at all as you can Asian theme any of the existing classes. But I don't think the existing book should be pulled from sale.

At least we are talking it out here.

 

[Eric V]

I explained this already; I do appreciate your clarification that you are using it in a college course apparently?

I mean... okay then. I would recommend using a book that is less likely to lead people to suggest that there is an objective measure of offense, but again, we must be reading different editions. Mine was undoubtedly the one that is not annotated for college courses and contained additional "course material" apparently orthogonal (or, perhaps, in contradiction) to the thesis of the book.

But what if I'm wrong? Well, I will have to live in the terror of not having to learn that mistake from you.

Stop making mistakes of assumption. It was a type of book club.

The book doesn't do that (the bolded part). No one I know says it does. It raises concerns about our certitude regarding things we're reasonably close to saying are objective facts (see his discussions with deGrasse Tyson, for example).

The objective fact in the discussion around OA is that people are offended by the insensitivity found within. They are offended as people of East Asian descent by the portrayal/caricature of their culture found within. They are offended that it was written strictly from a North American POV.

Why should a book that perpetuates these harmful stereotypes, etc. continue to be published by the company (even in pdf form)?*

The title is "But What If We're Wrong?" What are you identifying as the potential "wrong" in this discussion surrounding OA?

 

[Mercurius]

This whole issue of "entitlement" seems to be a red herring drawing away from the more important issues. Meaning, whether or not one is "entitled" to buy OA is really just a distracting quagmire (or to quote Admiral Akbar, "it's a trap!"). What is of greater concern is free expression, access to information, censorship, and all that it leads to.

Similarly, whether or not WotC has the right to take it out of circulation isn't really central. Of course they do. But we're seeing this issue throughout our culture. Whether it is tech giants, game publishers, or online moderators, choices are being made as to what is or is not available, what people can say, and what opinions can be shared; they become the de facto arbiters of free speech, free expression, opinion, and artistic freedom. It is uncharted territory, and we should tread very, very carefully.

As others have said, OA in itself isn't all that important. It is one book, published 35 years ago, with almost certainly very minimal sales. It is essentially a cultural artifact.

The concern I have is the precedent it sets. If OA is taken out of circulation, what's next? The common refrain is, "that's the slippery slope fallacy, and because it is listed on Wikipedia, you're wrong!" It is easy to cite a logical fallacy and use it as a ploy to avoid the real implications of such an act. Logical fallacies are a thing, but they don't automatically negate a concern.

If OA is removed from circulation it basically opens the door to everything being candidates for removal. History is filled with books that would be deemed "offensive" by varied segments of today's population; so I suppose everything is fair game.

We learn from history so that we do not repeat it. If we remove history, we cannot learn from it. We need our cultural artifacts, both to provide a record of where we have been, but also guide us in where we should go. The irony is that for those who are offended by OA, they are actually probably best served by it remaining in circulation so that it is readily available for people to understand why it is problematic (to whatever degree it is), and why certain choices and paths are taken going forward.

 

[Mercurius]

The objective fact in the discussion around OA is that [some] people are [subjectively] offended by the insensitivity [they interpret to be] found within...

Why should a book that perpetuates these harmful stereotypes, etc. continue to be published by the company (even in pdf form)?*

The title is "But What If We're Wrong?" What are you identifying as the potential "wrong" in this discussion surrounding OA?

I've added some bold parts to your quote above.

I somewhat addressed your questions in the post above, but to add a bit more. "Taking offense" is a subjective process, based upon interpretation and identification. Subjectivity changes. Our frameworks of interpretation change; what we identify with changes. We are, as individuals and cultures, constantly in flux.

OA is a cultural artifact. It is a moment in time. By changing or removing it, we artificially alter or bury the past, and we diminish our capacity to see where we've been and thus consciously determine where we might go.

If people are offended by it, that is their right -- just as it is their right to voice their offense. But it is my opinion that their underlying concerns are better addressed by suggesting a path forward, not negating the past. "OK, that was 35 years ago. What might an Asian-themed D&D book look like now? What have we learned?"

To take a more extreme case, Andrew Jackson's "Indian Removal Act" was deeply offensive by almost any measure of interpretation. But should we, ah, remove it from the record? It is a very important historical document that tells us how the POTUS--and many people--viewed the native people of North America. OA's level of offensiveness is obviously miniscule by comparison, and of course it differs in that it is a privately owned property. But within the context of D&D, doesn't the same logic apply? Don't we need our cultural and historical artifacts to help us redefine ourselves, again and again?