Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Ruin Explorer]

No. "Don't police me." is not the same as policing you. You are free to curtail your use of whatever words you wish. If you find 10,000 other people who feel the same way, you can all curtail your own uses of words. It's when the 10,000 of you try to curtail the use of those words by other people that policing comes into play.

It absolutely is the same thing.

Either neither of you are policing each other, or you're both policing each other. Claiming one side is and the other isn't, is partisan nonsense with no logical basis.

And in reality, "maybe think about word usage" isn't policing. Policing requires the ability to punish, to incarcerate, and so on. It's ludicrous and frankly incredibly "Princess and the Pea" to act like a mild request like this is policing. And again, if you really think it is, demanding people don't make the suggestion is exactly the same thing. Because you're saying they're not even allowed to suggest it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It isn't mild, and it isn't small at this stage in my opinion.

I am not policing anyone. I've invited critiques form you and from Aldarc. But I can criticize the criticism sure? And when the criticism becomes a trend, and impacts how people think when they are making art or designing games, I think it is fair to point out. Especially when it goes beyond that, as it has in recent years and you have calls to put pressure on companies or to boycott, so that products get removed. I think that is where this stuff becomes a big issue.

If you don't think this is "mild", you need to explain what was unreasonable in what Aldarc said, without resorting to nonsensical generalizations and vague, unsourced claims of persecution or mysterious "theys" who feel allegedly feel persecuted for unclear reasons. You have not presented any kind of reasonable, logical or straightforward argument here. You've merely thrown accusations at Aldarc for suggesting that maybe you think about language use, implying he's a policeman with his boot on your chest, which is just totally laughable.

Be very interested to see those cites on your claims re: pablum. They're very important to your argument here. If you can actually demonstrate harm, instead vague feelings of oppression, then things change a bit. Show us the pablum.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The first bit here is you deciding you're the victim, because you've been asked to think about word usage. That is ridiculous. Ludicrous. Laughable. It's not a reasonable thing to "feel" in response to such an incredibly mild point.

I am not claiming to be a victim. I am telling you how these things impact people trying to be creative. And I am just giving my honest reaction to the state of things in the hobby. I reached a point where I simply had to tune out these conversations because I found it stifling. I don't see how that is painting myself as a victim. And I don't see how it is an unreasonable reaction when you see constant threads on social media (in forums, on twitter, etc) around the topic of the way we use language in gaming.

The second point, re: "pablum", requires citations. You need specific examples of how when mild requests that people think about what words they use have lead directly to low-quality content. If you can't provide these, then that is not a reasonable claim, because it should be extremely easy, if there's a direct causal relationship, and you are asserting a direct causal relationship.

I don't think I am required to cite anything. This isn't an academic paper. It is also an issue of not wanting to put products on the spot. All I can say, and I am sure people who share my view on this can also say they have this experience, I've seen a lot of gaming content that appears to be pablum because of the kinds of vetting being done. You can disagree. But you can't demand I provide you with citations.

Going to need citations on those products, or I'm going to have to say, this is a fiction.

You can declare it a fiction if you want to. If you think there isn't a lot of pablum out there, and if you think this kind of development isn't contributing to more pablum content, more power to you. All I can say is that is not how I see things.

 

[Maxperson]

It absolutely is the same thing.

Either neither of you are policing each other, or you're both policing each other. Claiming one side is and the other isn't, is partisan nonsense with no logical basis.

You've just stated the equivalent of my saying, "Don't punch me." is the same as me punching you. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you don't think this is "mild", you need to explain what was unreasonable in what Aldarc said, without resorting to nonsensical generalizations and vague, unsourced claims of persecution. You have not presented any kind of reasonable, logical or straightforward argument here.

I feel like I have provided clear explanations and clear responses to what he has posted (and I've clarified when asked to do so). If that isn't sufficient for you, that is fair. But just declaring my posts illogical or not properly sourced, I don't know. Not really sure how to respond to this. If I haven't persuaded you, then I haven't persuaded you. But honestly what this feels like is you just asking arbitrarily raising the standards for giving an opinion on something.

You've merely thrown accusations at Aldarc for suggesting that maybe you think about language use, implying he's a policeman with his boot on your chest, which is just totally laughable.

I don't know how you get this. I said his argument, and the trend it is part of, is causing people to feel like their language is policed. It is a metaphor. Trying to draw a connection to that, and the event you are invoking here, is frankly somewhat repugnant.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You've just stated the equivalent of my saying, "Don't punch me." is the same as my punching you. It doesn't work that way.

No, this is a false equivalence, and thank you for proving my point.

No-one has committed a physical act against you. No-one has objectively oppressed you. You are claiming instead that you have subjectively experienced oppression, because of a mild request. Equating a mild request to a violent physical assault which might cause very serious harm or even kill (see: "one punch manslaughter") absolutely supports what I'm saying re: partisan and unreasonable arguments.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I feel like I have provided clear explanations and clear responses to what he has posted (and I've clarified when asked to do so). If that isn't sufficient for you, that is fair. But just declaring my posts illogical or not properly sourced, I don't know. Not really sure how to respond to this. If I haven't persuaded you, then I haven't persuaded you. But honestly what this feels like is you just asking arbitrarily raising the standards for giving an opinion on something.

I've made an extremely reasonable request, which is that you provide examples of the pablum you say this leads to.

If you really don't want to "put products on the spot" (which seems ludicrous unless you never publicly criticise works for being low-quality, but hey, maybe you don't), then PM me some examples. Anyone who has ever PM'd me hear knows I will not repeat anything said in PMs or otherwise make it an issue.

At least then I might be able to understand your perspective re: pablum. This is important because the only actual harm you're claiming here is "creatives" feeling "oppressed" which in your opinion, has lead to "pablum". Unless you are willing to explain further, then you should terminate that line of argument, because you're not willing to actually argue it. No-one is denying that some products suck, and some are better, but I've seen plenty of total trash which had absolute creative freedom, and excellent products created with a bunch of restrictions. And this is a very minor suggestion, not even a restriction.

If you don't like police metaphors, don't use police metaphors. It's hypocritical in the extreme to complain about them after using one. The reality is, no-one is being policed here, and the metaphor is actively unhelpful, as I hope I helped show.

I don't think I am required to cite anything. This isn't an academic paper. It is also an issue of not wanting to put products on the spot. All I can say, and I am sure people who share my view on this can also say they have this experience, I've seen a lot of gaming content that appears to be pablum because of the kinds of vetting being done. You can disagree. But you can't demand I provide you with citations.

What "vetting"? By whom? When? WotC has literally just decided to start doing this. Looking through history, I can't think of a single RPG product nerfed by "vetting" about this kind of language. I can see 2E was designed somewhat to avoid MADD etc., initially, but 2E certainly wasn't "pablum", and that was something very different - not a suggestion to be careful with language, but an organised campaign to specifically destroy D&D by people who didn't play it.

So I think it's reasonable that, without you pointing out any real incidents at all, and with not having been an industry trend (even now it's hard to argue it is), this is a fiction.

I can produce counter-examples all day, where books had total creative freedom, but were bad or mediocre, and sometimes wildly racist or sexist or the like to boot. I mean let's start with WoD: Gypsies - clear creative freedom, total trash on literally every level, and wildly racist. Indeed we could say White Wolf offered more creative freedom than TSR did or indeed most contemporaries of White Wolf, in the 1990s, but produced tons of terrible products. Indeed, one might reasonably go as far as to say that WW products which really pushed the boundaries on "creative freedom" in terms of acceptable content, were often lower-quality than their more mainstream products, on a variety levels. Amusing, often, but in a laughing-at kind of way.

So for you to claim that there is a correlation, apparently a strong one, between mild creative suggestions/restrictions (whatever) and "pablum", meaning completely bland and insipid products seems in need of evidence.

The only restriction I can see that does have some evidence that it leads to more insipid works is a much older one than any kind of language deal - it's requiring books to actually sell to a mass audience.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And in reality, "maybe think about word usage" isn't policing. Policing requires the ability to punish, to incarcerate, and so on. It's ludicrous and frankly incredibly "Princess and the Pea" to act like a mild request like this is policing. And again, if you really think it is, demanding people don't make the suggestion is exactly the same thing. Because you're saying they're not even allowed to suggest it.

This isn't really what is being done. At least, that isn't what I am doing. I've said time and time again, people can make the criticisms. But I can respond to the critiques and explain why I think they are bad. Both me and Aldarc are free to express these views, and it is good that we both express our viewpoints on this matter. I want Aldarc to make whatever criticisms Aldarc feels are needed. What I am saying is what I think is flawed about those criticisms, and where I think it is leading in the hobby as these kinds of critiques become more commonplace (due largely to the prevalence of social media).

Also, once again, when people talk about language policing, they are not speaking about literal policing (so it doesn't require the ability to incarcerate to be language policing---that strikes me as a pretty absurd argument). They are just talking about the atmosphere, the state of the discussion. When it becomes a constant vetting of language that is what people mean by language policing. This would be like if someone said I was tone policing when I rebuked Aldarc's post for snark, and I responded that it would be impossible for me to tone police Aldarc because I can't put him in jail.

 

[Campbell]

I think there is a trend towards more socially conscious media. I regard this as a good thing.
I also believe there is a trend towards more censorious attitudes. I do not regard this as a good thing.

However not all cultural criticism is censorious. Generally I do not approve of attempts to get existing material removed from the market place since I believe attempts to curb the regressive tend to also impact the subversive. I am not really a fan of organized boycotts, but I believe there is nothing wrong with basing your economic decisions based on ethical judgments of content or its creators. This is not fundamentally different from people criticizing recent pop culture like Mad Max - Fury Road, Star Wars, Black Panther or Captain Marvel because they think it is "too woke". I fundamentally disagree with them, but I do not think that criticism is always censorious.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you really don't want to "put products on the spot" (which seems ludicrous unless you never publicly criticise works for being low-quality, but hey, maybe you don't), then PM me some examples. Anyone who has ever PM'd me hear knows I will not repeat anything said in PMs or otherwise make it an issue.

I have to be honest, based on your posting style and your tone, I wouldn't trust PMs with you to remain private. And a big reason why I am not providing examples to you, is again, your tone and your posting style. If I felt it was a good faith request, I would have happily gone down that road. But my sense was it wasn't a good faith request.