WotC 2020 Was The Best Year Ever For Dungeons & Dragons

[Sacrosanct]

The person who used it already clarified they didn’t intend to use it offensively. You’re reading that into their post.

Doesn't matter if they intended to or not ("I'm sorry if you felt what I said was offensive" defense hardly every works well), or that they refused to apologize to me because they said it was my fault for taking that statement as problematic.

I'm responding to what you said, and your defense of it, which is itself a problem. Any time you start defending something as non offensive because people who belong to the group use the term, you're on weak ground. I think it would be obvious, with the ton of historical precedence we have, why that's a really bad defense. Even your second paragraph gave me flashbacks to all those comments I've heard in the past about "Chief is a term of respect among native americans, so Kansas City Chiefs can't be offensive, it's complimentary!" Or "Gypsy can't be offensive, because they call themselves that!"

When you're making literally the same argument (just replace the group name) as people on racist forums are making as to why calling others certain names is OK, you might want to step back a second.

Note, I am not calling you a racist or bigot or anything. And I'm not saying using grognard as a pejorative is on the same level as using the N word. I'm only saying the presentation and reasoning behind your defense of that comment strikes a strong parallel to arguments made to defend bigotry in the past. And I'd really like to avoid going anywhere near an implication of "older people haven't suffered as much discrimination as PoC or women, so it's OK to make fun of them" which is already happening (not by you)

Again, how hard is it to just avoid using that term in a negative connotation to describe people you don't like? That's all I'm asking. Why is there such a resistance to that ask, and such a firm defense in using it?

 

[Oofta]

The person who used it already clarified they didn’t intend to use it offensively. You’re reading that into their post.

Intent isn't an excuse.

 

[billd91]

Doesn't matter if they intended to or not ("I'm sorry if you felt what I said was offensive" defense hardly every works well), or that they refused to apologize to me because they said it was my fault for taking that statement as problematic.

I'm responding to what you said, and your defense of it, which is itself a problem. Any time you start defending something as non offensive because people who belong to the group use the term, you're on weak ground. I think it would be obvious, with the ton of historical precedence we have, why that's a really bad defense. Even your second paragraph gave me flashbacks to all those comments I've heard in the past about "Chief is a term of respect among native americans, so Kansas City Chiefs can't be offensive, it's complimentary!" Or "Gypsy can't be offensive, because they call themselves that!"

When you're making literally the same argument (just replace the group name) as people on racist forums are making as to why calling others certain names is OK, you might want to step back a second.

Note, I am not calling you a racist or bigot or anything. And I'm not saying using grognard as a pejorative is on the same level as using the N word. I'm only saying the presentation and reasoning behind your defense of that comment strikes a strong parallel to arguments made to defend bigotry in the past. And I'd really like to avoid going anywhere near an implication of "older people haven't suffered as much discrimination as PoC or women, so it's OK to make fun of them" which is already happening (not by you)

Again, how hard is it to just avoid using that term in a negative connotation to describe people you don't like? That's all I'm asking. Why is there such a resistance to that ask, and such a firm defense in using it?

Don't pin that naughty word on me. Oofta was declaring that grognard was only used pejoratively and I showed him it wasn't. That's all. Everything else is YOU reading in a lot of crap.

 

[Mistwell]

Intent isn't an excuse.

I mean, it is for most things actually. We're not talking "I didn't intend to shoot you with this loaded firearm I pointed at you" type situation, we're talking, "I didn't intent to say it the way it came out" or "I didn't intend to say something that bothered you when I didn't know it bothered you." That's a pretty important factor in assessing harm. We're supposed to give people the benefit of doubt on issues like this, right? We're all peers who are fans together of a game, and giving our peers the benefit of the doubt on words like this is pretty important to everyone getting along long term, isn't it?

 

[Oofta]

Don't pin that naughty word on me. Oofta was declaring that grognard was only used pejoratively and I showed him it wasn't. That's all. Everything else is YOU reading in a lot of crap.

When did I say "only"? In any case, do you seriously not grasp the concept that how a word is used as self-referential or to refer to someone else is different?

 

[Umbran]

Don't pin that naughty word on me.

Mod note:
Folks, there is about 17 times too much acrimony in this thread. It is supposed to be about a good year in gaming, and it seem to be dominated by people pointing fingers at each other. If you folks can't discuss a good year in some semblance of peace, maybe you need a break from discussion entirely, hm?

Please, take a breath. Consider the dynamic that you are contributing to before you hit "post reply".

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

But... but... but people here swore there would be a July book that would be announced any day!!!

 

[David Howery]

May I request/reserve the epithet "Babbling Old Fool" for myself please?

okay, you can be the 'babbling' one, I demand that I be titled "Feebleminded Old Fool"...

 

[Henadic Theologian]

But... but... but people here swore there would be a July book that would be announced any day!!!

It still might be, its possible the writer didn't count that or WotC forgot to tell them.

Its because folks thought the releases would be more staggard, but if two of the major book releases are related, say a campaign setting book and a tie in adventure book, they could both be released at the same time. Chris's adventure and Wyatts book could be released in September and be linked and then in November Amanda's book could come out.

 

[Umbran]

okay, you can be the 'babbling' one, I demand that I be titled "Feebleminded Old Fool"...

Do you? Really? Because that can be done, you know.