D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Filthy Lucre]

...in that it seems to be looking for argument rather than discussion.

Absolutely. I want to come to correct answers about issues. Putting forth an argument for why something should or shouldn't be such and such way is a very clear and simple way to get a firm grasp on the conceptual space. If there is no objective solution to this problem, then this is all just spinning of wheels and pissing into the wind.

 

[Mercurius]

I maintain that the Legacy Disclaimer, added by the publisher/estate, is all the action that needs to be taken. I don't want the works to be banned, censored, discontinued, or burned as some have suggested...and I certainly don't want the whole topic to be ignored or dismissed, as others have suggested.

The Legacy Content disclaimer isn't a perfect solution, but I feel like it's the best compromise between book-burning and willful ignorance.

(To be fair, I feel the Legacy Content disclaimer is insufficient also. But it's the closest thing we have to a compromise, so far anyway.)

I'm a little confused here, as you express three different things in three separate posts.

What action(s) beyond a legacy disclaimer do you feel is sufficient?

 

[Filthy Lucre]

I'm a little confused here, as you express three different things in three separate posts.

What action(s) beyond a legacy disclaimer do you feel is sufficient?

Err...? He's saying it's the best possible solution. Not that it's the best solution, simpliciter. Seems pretty clear. To my reading he's stating the same thing, three diferrent times, and in differing degrees of intensity - but he's not contradicting himself.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't really think saying both sides are equally entrenched is a good reason to seemingly declare them to have the same validity. One side saying alignment is bad because it's imprecise and leads to a lot of bad implications and one side saying that taking alignment out is a personal attack on themselves are not really equal arguments in my mind, no matter how entrenched both might be.

I didn't say they have the same validity, but I do think understanding both sides is important. And furthermore, not pushing people that don't agree with you into an extreme. There are a lot of gradations between extreme views, what CleverNickName called "book-burning" on one side and "willful ignorance" on the other.

I mean, why do people feel personally attacked? People often say that no one gets to decide whether a person is offended or not other than the person who is offended, but shouldn't the same be applied to feeling personally attacked? If we write it off as simply unreasonable, aren't we doing the same kind of gaslighting that we accuse them of when they say "If you're offended, that's your problem"?

I mean, I agree with you that the "pearl-clutching" can be over the top, and some of it has to do with resistance to change. Maybe even a small percentage has to do with ignorance or even bigotry. But a lot of it has to do with people feeling like they're being attacked for BadWrongView, or for the implication that if they like certain things in their game (e.g. evil orcs or Lovecraft), they're enabling bad things - and thus bad themselves.

 

[Mercurius]

Err...? He's saying it's the best possible solution. Not that it's the best solution, simpliciter. Seems pretty clear. To my reading he's stating the same thing, three diferrent times, and in differing degrees of intensity - but he's not contradicting himself.

Yes, I understand that they think it's the best possible solution as a compromise, but I'm asking what htey think would be "sufficient."

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm a little confused here, as you express three different things in three separate posts.

Eh, I'm like that sometimes. ADHD makes conversation fun!^TM

What action(s) beyond a legacy disclaimer do you feel is sufficient?

What I'm trying to say is, the Legacy Content disclaimer isn't perfect...it raises awareness of certain issues, and that's a good thing, but it doesn't really provide any direction or corrective actions, and that might be a good thing or a bad thing depending on who's doing the directing. But it's better than doing nothing, or ignoring/dismissing/excusing it.

So while I'd like to be able to do more than just slap a Legacy Content disclaimer on problematic works, I acknowledge that I haven't seen any better options yet. Hopefully that'll change. But right now, it's better than book-banning or willful ignorance.

Yes, I understand that they think it's the best possible solution as a compromise, but I'm asking what htey think would be "sufficient."

To be clear: I feel the Legacy Disclaimer is sufficient for now.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have a tad hard time following what people are even disagreeing about...

 

[Mercurius]

Eh, I'm like that sometimes. ADHD makes conversation fun!^TM

What I'm trying to say is, the Legacy Content disclaimer isn't perfect...it raises awareness of certain issues, and that's a good thing, but it doesn't really provide any direction or corrective actions, and that might be a good thing or a bad thing depending on who's doing the directing. But it's better than doing nothing, or ignoring/dismissing/excusing it.

So while I'd like to be able to do more than just slap a Legacy Content disclaimer on problematic works, I acknowledge that I haven't seen any better options yet. Hopefully that'll change. But right now, it's better than book-banning or willful ignorance.

OK, thanks for clarifying. And I actually agree.

I think the reason there is no clear better solution is that we're talking about stuff that has to be worked out of our system over the long-haul.

EDIT: a bit more. I mean, we're talking about centuries, if not millennia, of enculturation. I would also suggest that human culture is a work in progress, and there's no singular right way to do it. I'm always leery of people who say "This is the right way, and if don't agree, you're bad!"

We, collectively and individually, are in a process - we're trying to figure things out. While we'd all like to get to wherever we imagine we should be, whatever our own view of a more beautiful and kind society is, as quickly as possible, it takes time. And sometimes pushing too hard, sets us back even further, so I think the key question is, "are we, overall, moving forward?" And by "forward," I mean towards a kinder, more inclusive way of being, but also one that honors the freedom and sovereignty of the individual. A tricky business!

And I'd suggest that even when we get "there," we'll discover new problems!

 

[Gradine]

So, the disclaimer is a great step in presenting legacy content; but the problem is no one seems to be willing to admit that there is nuance in how far other steps should be taken. I would make the argument that there is no "one-size-fits-all" easy solution that one or both sides wish for/demand. Judiciousness is required. I would argue that there is some content that deserves to be remanded to the dustbin of history. Works of literature with incidental racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. doesn't clear that high bar, but if we're talking about works where the raison d'etre is to promote hatred and/or bigotry? I would consider it unethical to release such to the public for entertainment purposes.

This of course leads to cries regarding who does or does not get to be the judge. There are sensitivity readers, which have worked well for modern works; why not sensitivity distributors? Such folx would be best positioned not just to determine the worthiness of each work, but also to more carefully craft personalized disclaimers with specific warnings, rather than a simple generic boilerplate disclaimer for everything.

This is a different conversation, mind you, from platforming/profiting living bigots and/or sex criminals; which is a whole other issue that actually does have an easy, one-size-fits-all solution: don't

 

[Filthy Lucre]

I have a tad hard time following what people are even disagreeing about...

I'll disagree with anyone, about anything.