WotC Dungeons & Dragons Fans Seek Removal of Oriental Adventures From Online Marketplace

[Snarf Zagyg]

If I am reading the above correctly, then I agree.

To force speech is censorship.

Good point, that to force someone to make a statement is also a form of censorship, as well as forcing someone to silence a statement.

Here's the problem; it's a sleight of hand that is re-defining terms.

In essence, it is saying, "Look, 'A' has negative connotations. So I am just going to say that both sides are arguing for 'A', even though one side is arguing for 'A' and one is arguing for 'not A'." It's advanced "both sides-ism."

The reason why you don't immediately see it is because of two rhetorical tricks.

First, eliding the status quo.
Second, by re-defining censorship to include "forced speech."


Let's examine both.

1. Re-defining the status quo.
Store is selling Acme Widgets. That is the status quo.

It is category error to say that forcing them to stop selling widgets is the same as forcing them to keep selling widgets.
The reason for this should be obvious; they are already selling the widgets, and would continue to do so. No 'force' is being applied.

This doesn't affect the rights of people to advocate for the store to stop selling widgets, either with their wallet (don't buy the widgets) or through advocacy (telling other people that the widgets are harmful), but saying that these two things are the same is incorrect.


2. Compelled speech isn't censorship.

Compelled speech is wrong. In America, for example, it can violate the First Amendment in some case (such as when the government compels someone to say something they don't believe). But, and this is important, it's not the same thing as censorship. Even assuming that this is compelled speech (but see 1), compelled speech is never censorship. Here is the first definition of censorship when you look it up:
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

You can continue, but the whole point of censorship is that is involves suppression or prohibition of speech.


If this wasn't clear, think of the following two situations:
A. A group is demanding that booksellers and publishers stop selling gay and trans-friendly books.

B. A group is demanding that all doctors be required to give a prepared anti-trans message if an inquiry is made about gender identity. The doctor can still provide accurate information after that, but MUST provide that prepared message.


Both (A) and (B) are bad! But calling B censorship is just incorrect. It's compelled speech.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because ... EVERY .... SINGLE ... THING .... will be offensive by current standards.

Have you been completely and willfully oblivious to all the conversations that are being had? I have to assume so.[/quot]

I have been paying attention to many of the conversations that are being had. And what I am hearing consistently is that these things have not suddenly become offensive. Oriental Adventures was, as pointed out in one of these threads bad even when it was launched.

The big difference is that the realms of practical free speech have grown due to mass communication. Back in the day it was very easy for the powerful and privileged to say things from their large soap boxes and it was harder for people to ask them not to do that. Free speech has flowered and been democratised thanks to the internet. And this has lead to people who aren't powerful or privileged finding it much easier to get an audience rather than being structurally censored.

And anyone who is in favour of free speech should be cheering this cutting back of structural censorship even if a necessary consequence of it is that people are now able to effectively show when they are offended.

And on a tangent deep into this thread what I would like is for WotC to multiply the price of Oriental Adventures and other related legacy books by a factor of five and donate the profits to charity. That deals with the objection of putting the books out of print (and with it "censorship") while raising money to try to undo the issues.

 

[Haldrik]

Regarding OA, it was something that was acceptable then, and is no longer acceptable now.

I can see WotC going either way on whether continuing to sell it or not.

As far as I can tell, the notification alerting the buyer to historically racist content seems a reasonable course of action. I doubt WotC would have though it was necessary to do this without individuals like Kwan and @Panda-s1 calling attention to the objectionable content.

Probably some books are more objectionable than others. WotC could selectively rethink which products they want to continue selling. Maybe OA is unusually problematic. I mean, the "rice" thing got to me. That is something that by every expectation should have been a neutral interesting detail, ... and yet.



For reasons, I dont quite understand, quantity seems to matter. For example, even a product with one or two "brief" scenes of violence can still be "rated G" for kids. I would rather have a simple rule. But it does feel right to me, that quantity matters.

So if some earlier books have one or two accidental statements that sound racist, that would be problematic but tolerable?

And perhaps OA might have too many problems to continue marketing it?

 

[Haldrik]

Here's the problem; it's a sleight of hand that is re-defining terms.

In essence, it is saying, "Look, 'A' has negative connotations. So I am just going to say that both sides are arguing for 'A', even though one side is arguing for 'A' and one is arguing for 'not A'." It's advanced "both sides-ism."

The reason why you don't immediately see it is because of two rhetorical tricks.

First, eliding the status quo.
Second, by re-defining censorship to include "forced speech."


Let's examine both.

1. Re-defining the status quo.
Store is selling Acme Widgets. That is the status quo.

It is category error to say that forcing them to stop selling widgets is the same as forcing them to keep selling widgets.
The reason for this should be obvious; they are already selling the widgets, and would continue to do so. No 'force' is being applied.

This doesn't affect the rights of people to advocate for the store to stop selling widgets, either with their wallet (don't buy the widgets) or through advocacy (telling other people that the widgets are harmful), but saying that these two things are the same is incorrect.


2. Compelled speech isn't censorship.

Compelled speech is wrong. In America, for example, it can violate the First Amendment in some case (such as when the government compels someone to say something they don't believe). But, and this is important, it's not the same thing as censorship. Even assuming that this is compelled speech (but see 1), compelled speech is never censorship. Here is the first definition of censorship when you look it up:
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

You can continue, but the whole point of censorship is that is involves suppression or prohibition of speech.


If this wasn't clear, think of the following two situations:
A. A group is demanding that booksellers and publishers stop selling gay and trans-friendly books.

B. A group is demanding that all doctors be required to give a prepared anti-trans message if an inquiry is made about gender identity. The doctor can still provide accurate information after that, but MUST provide that prepared message.


Both (A) and (B) are bad! But calling B censorship is just incorrect. It's compelled speech.

Ok, I get a sense of the technical arugment.

From my perspective, I dont care if something is "offensive". I care if it is hateful.

So, if two sides are debating something, and one side is hateful and the other side isnt. Then done. The hateful party must be asked to leave.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Ok, I get a sense of the technical arugment.

From my perspective, I dont care if something is "offensive". I care if it is hateful.

So, if two sides are debating something, and one side is hateful and the other side isnt. Then done. The hateful party must be asked to leave.

But that's not easy to resolve, either. At least not when we are discussing past pieces.

As has been pointed out and acknowledged, Mr. Kwan does not care if his observations are factually accurate (comeliness) or contextually accurate; he believes that correct metric is how someone with no actual knowledge of the historical context would react to it today.

But what is "hateful" for that context?

Uncle Tom's Cabin, read with no knowledge of the history and subject matter, is incredibly racist. It's also one of the most important abolitionist works in American history.

Cruising is an exploitative and, frankly, homophobic film; yet it is also one of the few explicit, mainstream looks at an historical scene that was destroyed a few years later in the AIDS epidemic.

The Dungeon Master's Guide is, arguably, Gygax's greatest work and one of the seminal books in all of RPG history, one that people still refer to today. Yet it contains such material as the infamous Random Harlot Table, "Asian Form" royal titles, and all sorts of language that was indicative of its era. Don't believe me? Read this description:

Goodwife encounters are with a single woman, often indistinguishable from any other type of female (such as a magic-user, harlot, etc.). Any offensive treatment or seeming threat will be likely to cause the woman to scream for help, accusing the offending party of any number of crimes, i.e. assault, rape, theft, or murder. 20% of goodwives know interesting gossip.

So, you can't tell the difference between a regular single woman and a prostitute. They are going to scream and lie about things ... like rape. And they know gossip.

Move along, nothing to see here.

If you go back, you will find the offense you are looking for.

 

[Haldrik]

But that's not easy to resolve, either. At least not when we are discussing past pieces.

As has been pointed out and acknowledged, Mr. Kwan does not care if his observations are factually accurate (comeliness) or contextually accurate; he believes that correct metric is how someone with no actual knowledge of the historical context would react to it today.

But what is "hateful" for that context?

Uncle Tom's Cabin, read with no knowledge of the history and subject matter, is incredibly racist. It's also one of the most important abolitionist works in American history.

Cruising is an exploitative and, frankly, homophobic film; yet it is also one of the few explicit, mainstream looks at an historical scene that was destroyed a few years later in the AIDS epidemic.

The Dungeon Master's Guide is, arguably, Gygax's greatest work and one of the seminal books in all of RPG history, one that people still refer to today. Yet it contains such material as the infamous Random Harlot Table, "Asian Form" royal titles, and all sorts of language that was indicative of its era. Don't believe me? Read this description:

Goodwife encounters are with a single woman, often indistinguishable from any other type of female (such as a magic-user, harlot, etc.). Any offensive treatment or seeming threat will be likely to cause the woman to scream for help, accusing the offending party of any number of crimes, i.e. assault, rape, theft, or murder. 20% of goodwives know interesting gossip.

So, you can't tell the difference between a regular single woman and a prostitute. They are going to scream and lie about things ... like rape. And they know gossip.

Move along, nothing to see here.

If you go back, you will find the offense you are looking for.

I agree that it is difficult to know what to do with content from earlier eras. On the one hand, they are important for "archival" for the historical record. On the other hand, they cannot be presented today uncritically without comment.


Suppose OA turns out under scrutiny to be too problematic. And suppose WotC wanted to continue selling it because of its historical record of an earlier era in the history of D&D. Maybe it would be better to sell a highly problematic book under a different category that makes it clear that WotC disavows the product. Right now the warning label for "possible" problematic texts is probably good enough for most D&D products, probably including the parts of the 1e Dungeon Masters Guide that showed poor judgment. If an other book proves to have too many problematic parts, maybe the warning label needs to be much stronger.

Of course, if a book even had a single sentence that was extremely hateful, then that would be censorable. But I feel no book in D&D is in an extreme category.

Mostly it is a case that some books might be worse than others, and perhaps too much is too much, and might deserve a stronger label, at least.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree that it is difficult to know what to do with content from earlier eras. On the one hand, they are important for "archival" for the historical record. On the other hand, they cannot be presented today uncritically without comment.


Suppose OA turns out under scrutiny to be too problematic. And suppose WotC wanted to continue selling it because of its historical record of an earlier era in the history of D&D. Maybe it would be better to sell a highly problematic book under a different category that makes it clear that WotC disavows the product. Right now the warning label for "possible" problematic texts is probably good enough for most D&D products, probably including the parts of the 1e Dungeon Masters Guide that showed poor judgment. If an other book proves to have too many problematic parts, maybe the warning label needs to be much stronger.

Of course, if a book even had a single sentence that was extremely hateful, then that would be censorable. But I feel no book in D&D is in an extreme category.

Mostly it is a case that some books might be worse than others, and perhaps too much is too much, and might deserve a stronger label, at least.

I remember, back in the day, taking a class on advanced film theory. And one of the directors we covered was ... Leni Reifenstahl. She was a visionary director and many of her techniques are used today- modern sports coverage, for instance is difficult to imagine without her.

Yeah. "Problematic" doesn't begin to cover it.

I think that the conversations that people are having are invaluable. It is good to look and question past assumptions. It is excellent to critically examine the biases that went into a work; look, for example, at the "Goodwife" description I pulled out of the DMG. I doubt that many, if any, people batted an eye at that at the time.

Now, it's completely outrageous. And it's a good conversation to have to examine why this is, and what changed, because that's how we avoid those issues going forward.

I appreciate that you have a concept of what is, and isn't, bad enough (hateful enough) to be censorable, but I don't. I know that I've seen people use slippery definition against me and people I care about for. An old trick used to be that depictions of regular intimacy were "normal," but depictions of "aberrant" (what we now call LGBTQ) sexuality were obscene, and therefore could be censored.

It all makes me deeply uncomfortable, because I just don't trust those lines to be drawn by people, even those with the best of intentions. I do agree with you that presenting material with label is fine, and that we should look to examine them critically.

 

[MGibster]

I think that the conversations that people are having are invaluable. It is good to look and question past assumptions. It is excellent to critically examine the biases that went into a work; look, for example, at the "Goodwife" description I pulled out of the DMG. I doubt that many, if any, people batted an eye at that at the time.

The particular passage was cited by those crusading against Dungeons & Dragons in the 80s.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The particular passage was cited by those crusading against Dungeons & Dragons in the 80s.

....are you sure? I can't speak for each and every person, but I don't recall that particular entry being a focus of the 80s and Pat Pulling.

I'm sure they probably pulled it to say, "Look, mentions of rape and prostitution!"

I very much doubt it was controversial for the same reasons that it is now. Am I wrong?

 

[Haldrik]

I remember, back in the day, taking a class on advanced film theory. And one of the directors we covered was ... Leni Reifenstahl. She was a visionary director and many of her techniques are used today- modern sports coverage, for instance is difficult to imagine without her.

Yeah. "Problematic" doesn't begin to cover it.

I think that the conversations that people are having are invaluable. It is good to look and question past assumptions. It is excellent to critically examine the biases that went into a work; look, for example, at the "Goodwife" description I pulled out of the DMG. I doubt that many, if any, people batted an eye at that at the time.

Now, it's completely outrageous. And it's a good conversation to have to examine why this is, and what changed, because that's how we avoid those issues going forward.

I appreciate that you have a concept of what is, and isn't, bad enough (hateful enough) to be censorable, but I don't. I know that I've seen people use slippery definition against me and people I care about for. An old trick used to be that depictions of regular intimacy were "normal," but depictions of "aberrant" (what we now call LGBTQ) sexuality were obscene, and therefore could be censored.

It all makes me deeply uncomfortable, because I just don't trust those lines to be drawn by people, even those with the best of intentions. I do agree with you that presenting material with label is fine, and that we should look to examine them critically.

In the case of earlier views against LGBTQ, I view it as one side was hateful and the other side wasnt. So, I have no problem sorting that out.

But the opposite is true. For example, there are (many) instances, when Christians are the target of hatespeech, and that is equally hateful and censorable.

There is no room for hateful behavior.