Um, no.
First of all, I have seen many packages containing no nuts that contain the warning "Made in a factory which processes peanut oil" or other such variations. Not because the product itself contains nuts, but because it was made in the same factory, and some people are allergic enough that an accidental transfer could be problematic for them.
What WoTC disclaimer says is that some of the products contain depictions of racial, ethnic or culture prejudice that was common back in the day. This could be anything from an picture of drow with a specific style of haircut, to a specific cultural setting.
Those depictions are wrong, and not just wrong today, they were wrong back then too.
Does every work contain these? No.
Does every depiction of race, culture or ethnicity have prejudice? No.
But some do, and some of them are, and this is an acknowledgement of that fact.
Edit: You seem to have partially responded to this idea by saying that the analogy doesn't work because Peanuts can kill you, but stereotypes can't. My response falls under a different category altogether. I do not believe their needs to be a risk of hospitalization or death for there to be a need for warning labels.
I'm going to revise some of my earlier reactions. Not about them declaring creators and players wrong, that's exactly what they did. But as I analyze this more, I think this is an
extremely interesting event.
First, some context:
- Just a couple of weeks ago WOTC banned a number of old cards in Magic
- Just a couple of weeks ago WOTC publicly stated that they're not going to work with one of their longest term artists anymore for the high crime of following conservatives on Twitter.
- Just a couple of weeks ago WOTC changed races in D&D in response to someone on Twitter complaining that Orcs and Drow are racist
- Just a couple of weeks ago WOTC announced they're going to update all future copies of previously printed 5th edition material to change them based on the above
So we can pretty clearly say that WOTC has absolutely no compunction about banning older material and changing existing material to effectively ban previously printed content.
We should also consider and remember, WOTC recently dropped a progressive relationship in their novel line with little explanation and no warning. The leading theory being that Netflix told them they couldn't/wouldn't invest in a Magic based show if they kept it, because Netflix thought it was potentially so controversial that their series would bomb (Note: This is a
very unusual relationship based on what I've read).
So why is WOTC, who was more than happy to ban things at the drop of a hat based on Twitter just a couple of weeks ago now just putting warning labels on things?
I think the answers are in: The warning message, last night's WOTC statement, and this morning's changes.
Why wouldn't WOTC just ban Oriental Adventures and perhaps Al-Quadim? Why go nuclear on everything prior to 5th edition? I'm of the opinion that they really wanted to ban them. I suspect WOTC's staff went into the office Monday morning all ready to ban the books, sat down in a meeting, and came out of it really mad. I suspect the meeting went something along the lines of...
WOTC: We want to ban Oriental Adventures, (lists a few others) from the online store because someone on Twitter said they're racist.
Decision Maker: We're investing 50-100 million in a movie based on D&D. You're not going to go and ban those books, and creating a controversy because someone on Twitter said they're racist, it would take more than that. We need the Players from 1st and 3rd edition to buy movie tickets, we want this to be a franchise (or cinematic universe). We need Warner Bros to continue to work with us to make the movie. No controversy.
WOTC: We have to do something! Those books are racist!
Decision Maker: Do what Warner Bros did with Looney Toons, take their warning label, put it on the books. Warners won't get mad at that.
I strongly suspect that's why we have the verbatim Warner Bros label on the books. Those books aren't selling well enough to be a revenue stream they couldn't lose, so it had to be something else, and I'm pretty sure the WB warning label tells us what it was. But I'm also pretty confident that made WOTC really mad, they've no qualms about banning things, and I can't imagine that a WOTC that would drop a working relationship of decades because she followed some conservatives on Twitter would be happy with warning labels.
So I suspect WOTC decided they were going to be passive aggressive about the whole thing. The fact that the warning label isn't on 5th edition, that the called problematic a couple weeks ago, but on
everything else reeks of someone throwing their toys out of the pram. The reasonable thing to do was to review the material and apply it on products that had issues, they didn't do that, they declared everything was wrong.
The statement last night is the next clue. They (paraphrased) told customers that they're not part of the community if they "Harass or bully" the person/people complaining on Twitter (Which, let's be honest, the interpretation of both of those words today is
extremely loose). I can say with absolute certainty that Hasbro didn't sign off on that, Hasbro doesn't have any interest in getting into Twitter fights, and certainly doesn't want WOTC telling people not to be customers if they disagree with people on Twitter, which let's be honest here, that's the definition of "Harass or bully" that's going to get used like it does everywhere else today.
So why go to that length? Why make an express purpose of telling people that they're not "part of our community"? It only makes sense if WOTC was angry at the decision in the first place. Remember, WOTC had
no problem with the way people treated their former artist (Who is coincidentally a married lesbian), but a random person on the internet warrants that message? They had to know someone was going to be on an unhappy call with Hasbro today about that when they did it, so it really only makes sense if someone was angry.
So the only real question is, who is the decision maker? The answer's in today's action. Today WOTC updated Oriental Adventures to put the warning label at the top and bottom, obviously in response to the person on Twitter who has been complaining. So they're clearly able to change those pages in a few hours time, and clearly in control of those pages, as they responded in less than a day to the person's continued complaints.
So that means that it's
extremely unlikely WOTC got surprised by the update, and the fact that no announcement was made or hurriedly dropped means they didn't have it prepared. How could they not have it prepared? How could they not have just written up and dropped an announcement quickly?
The only way that happens is if the announcement now needs approval by the decision maker, it only happens if WOTC is no longer in full control. If WOTC was in full control, they could just post the message, or they could have someone in house write it and get a group to sign off on it in a few hours. It had to be going through someone else, and that person must not have considered it a priority. WOTC waited most of the day to make a statement, so they were waiting most of the day for someone to sign off on something. So they were left without an announcement, without an ability to make an announcement, and their only option was to use back channels like social media to say something.
So honestly, I'm pretty well convinced Hasbro's already taking over WOTC. I'm revising my opinion down to: WOTC will be very different by the end of 2020 at latest.
(Cue people claiming I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist)
