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

[Umbran]

Its fascinating that while China is running concentration camps to exterminate the Uyghurs, clearly genocide of a race. The focus on the youth today is whether dead authors had racist thoughts in the creation of fantasy monsters.

I hate racism, and I always thought Tolkeins orcs and Mordor were a loose representation of Nazi Germany.

Mod Note:
Let us stay away from the real-world politics please.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

I'm not for necessarily restricting it, but I also think this argument is a complete non-sequitur. Like, Disney not having Song of the South available doesn't make me resentful because I don't care about seeing that media. Why would you feel resentful for a racist document that you normally wouldn't be interested in in the first place being restricted?

Can we talk about how SotS ruined an African American folk hero? (Possibly also just an African folk hero).

 

[CleverNickName]

Can we talk about how SotS ruined an African American folk hero? (Possibly also just an African folk hero).

Sounds like a great thread for the "Geek Talk & Media" sub-forum. Star Wars has been hogging up too much of the Disney-related discussion.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't subscribe to the view that history is teleological (i.e. has progress). Things don't necessarily get better for human flourishing with the passage of time, even if human flourishing is a broadly agreed upon goal. But I agree that (except in drastic--and usually bad--circumstances) sweeping cultural change is something that only happens "over the long-haul" and that happily, in most of the world, long run cultural trends are generally positive.

I don't think it is strictly linear in terms of progress, either, and am actually somewhat partial to the cyclical (or at least spiratic) view ala Hinduism. But that's a different conversation. But some things improve over time - as you say, and certainly over the course of modern history. On the other hand, some things don't - or get reskinned or hidden.

 

[Mercurius]

I mean, you basically stated it yourself: a lot of the resistance to these changes are largely people feeling like they are being called "racist" for liking it. Like, I've already said this in numerous threads before.

Yeah, and that kind of sucks - especially if they aren't racist, or don't consider themselves as such.

There's much more spectrum on the side of changing things because you can have many solutions, while a side resisting only really has one: don't. I can have individual disagreements about what change needs to occur, but ultimately I just don't see those disagreements as being the same as the overall argument about whether to have change in the first place.

Is anyone advocating for absolutely no change in this thread? Some might advocate for acknowledgement only, but even that involves some degree of change, at least for future products.

I'll be honest, I find using the phrase "both sides" in other topics (particularly politics) to generally not be used honestly and be more about someone who is embarrassed by their views and wanting them to discredit the other side because of it. I'm not going to delve into that because that will be way more political than that, but it's why I generally react to people who use it with an instinctive eye roll.

Seems like a bad faith argument, and an easy way to write something off. But some of these sorts of critiques actually come from the same "side." I think what you're saying implies that everyone on one side agrees about everything (or everyone is firmly on one side or the other), which I have found to simply not be the case.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yeah, and that kind of sucks - especially if they aren't racist, or don't consider themselves as such.

It's okay to like problematic media... but you do have to recognize it as problematic. Sadly this is not how a lot of people look at it.

Is anyone advocating for absolutely no change in this thread? Some might advocate for acknowledgement only, but even that involves some degree of change, at least for future products.

I mean, yeah, someone like two pages back literally advocated for no change because you should know simply by date of publication. lol

Seems like a bad faith argument, and an easy way to write something off. But some of these sorts of critiques actually come from the same "side." I think what you're saying implies that everyone on one side agrees about everything (or everyone is firmly on one side or the other), which I have found to simply not be the case.

I mean, as I've seen it when used in regard to politics, it is nearly without fail a bad-faith argument. The way your using it... I think doesn't reflect your belief, really, or the argument we are in. But I think we at least get each other.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

I mean, as I've seen it when used in regard to politics, it is nearly without fail a bad-faith argument. The way your using it... I think doesn't reflect your belief, really, or the argument we are in. But I think we at least get each to her.

Dismissing something as a bad faith argument is lazy. Bad faith arguments are no less susceptible to analysis than good faith arguments.

If you don't have the energy or wherewithal to deal with it, just say that.

 

[Mercurius]

What I am proposing and censorship are two very different things. Judicious access to a privately owned (if public-facing) platform/marketplace is both practical and good.

I didn't say they are the same thing, though I do think they are related. What I said is that I dislike them for similar reasons.

For one, the entire concept of a "sensitive reader" (or distributor) is starting from a point in which a value-system is already pre-established.

I also dislike the idea of someone else deciding for me what ideas are ok to consume. I have no issue with a "legacy disclaimer" or a publisher deciding on a certain direction going forward, but I also like the idea of having access to a wide range of ideas.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is actually a Catch 22, because not judiciously restricting access also breeds resentment. We've seen this play out plenty of times across RPG marketplaces.

You cannot please all the time; refusing to choose is, in itself, a choice. There is not a fence to sit on; a choice must be made, and it comes down to which groups of people you are comfortable displeasing.

Your statement is false though. People don't have to choose and it's not black or white there's a lot of grey. Your opinion isn't fact.

You're trying to force people into this box or that box. It's very American and very arrogant.

Most people probably don't care to much one way or another. They live their life the best way they can they may or may not pass some purity test. Globally most will fail a purity test.

 

[Mercurius]

It's okay to like problematic media... but you do have to recognize it as problematic. Sadly this is not how a lot of people look at it.

I "have to"? And what if I don't see it as problematic as you do, or at least have a different response to it?

I mean, yeah, someone like two pages back literally advocated for no change because you should know simply by date of publication. lol

I'll let that person speak for themselves, but this doesn't necessarily mean no change, it just means not changing the past (which we can't). It could still mean making changes going forward.

I mean, as I've seen it when used in regard to politics, it is nearly without fail a bad-faith argument. The way your using it... I think doesn't reflect your belief, really, or the argument we are in. But I think we at least get each other.

Maybe. I've too often seen it as an easy way to write someone off, or (wrongly) assume they're "on the other side." It just becomes too simplistic, too black-and-white (either you're with us 100% or you're against us).