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

[Gradine]

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.

I don't know if you noticed, but we live in a society with a collectively established value-system. There is nothing under the sun that is "value-free". Not all ideas are worthy of consideration, and not all values are worthy of respect.

Again, this is within the domain of a privately-owned storefront, which, provided it does not sell literally everything under the sun, exhibits a degree of judgment of what will be sold and what will not. It is valuable to study hatred and bigotry in an academic sense, which is why I would never argue to ban a book from, say, a publicly funded library. But if I'm selling the stuff I get to pick which stuff I sell. Which values are my choices there going to reflect?

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.

Your concern was that refusing to sell a product would upset people. The fact (observable, provable fact) is that not refusing to sell a product will also upset people. Given my limited understanding of quantum mechanics, I'm not sure a third option is possible (if you have one, please share!); the only choice is which group of people you are most comfortable with being upset. Which is, again, a reflection of what you value.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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.

lol

If you've ever seen me in an argument, do you think I don't have the energy to deal with something like that? I hate to tell you this, but I can basically do this forever.

Whenever someone plays that, I press them. In my experience, I find them being the ones being lazy. Inevitably they want to equate my views to theirs, and I don't let that sort of thing stand.

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, just because I'm not offended doesn't mean it's not problematic, it just doesn't hit the same notes with me as it may with others. I typically give people who find something problematic the benefit of the doubt when they are explaining things, though a bad explanation might change my mind.

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.

Changes going forward would be doing things like putting disclaimers, so I think it definitely qualifies.

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).

I don't think anything close to that has come up in this thread, and I definitely haven't seen it on my half of the arguments here at Enworld. I don't even know what "with us or against us" would be in this case. Would I be calling them racists? I don't think I've actually seen that deployed here yet.

Again, I find the emotional side typically is more adamant about this sort of thing because they are viewing it emotionally. But that's just me. I don't find the sides equal precisely because of that.

 

[Voadam]

Why would you feel resentful for a racist document that you normally wouldn't be interested in in the first place being restricted?

A long number of possible reasons.

Take if Orcs of Thar was restricted.

1) I did have an interest in it.

2) I might disagree with the restrictor on what aspects are problematic and to what degree.

3) I might agree with the restrictor on what aspects are problematic and how problematic they are but still disagree that restriction is an appropriate response.

4) If it is restricted I can not judge the material myself, the restrictor has paternalistically and arrogantly determined what is appropriate for me based on their judgment and not mine which might differ significantly.

5) I would normally recommend it to people interested in a BECMI treatment of humanoid racial classes, but provide awareness of the problematic issues so they can consider if they want to get it and make use of it. If it were restricted that would cut off access for a fellow gamer who I thought would have benefited from it.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

lol

If you've ever seen me in an argument, do you think I don't have the energy to deal with something like that? I hate to tell you this, but I can basically do this forever.

Whenever someone plays that, I press them. In my experience, I find them being the ones being lazy. Inevitably they want to equate my views to theirs, and I don't let that sort of thing stand.

I'll have to pay close attention to you and pounce any time I see something I disagree with and see if you live up to this expectation.

 

[Justice and Rule]

A long number of possible reasons.

Take if Orcs of Thar was restricted.

1) I did have an interest in it.

2) I might disagree with the restrictor on what aspects are problematic and to what degree.

3) I might agree with the restrictor on what aspects are problematic and how problematic they are but still disagree that restriction is an appropriate response.

4) If it is restricted I can not judge the material myself, the restrictor has paternalistically and arrogantly determined what is appropriate for me based on their judgment and not mine which might differ significantly.

5) I would normally recommend it to people interested in a BECMI treatment of humanoid racial classes, but provide awareness of the problematic issues so they can consider if they want to get it and make use of it. If it were restricted that would cut off access for a fellow gamer who I thought would have benefited from it.

I think you can construct reasons, but like, if it were to happen tomorrow... would you? Again, I'm not really resentful towards Disney for restricting Song of the South. Are you? I just don't care and don't find it affects my life.

I just think the idea of resentment to be weird for that. Mild irritation, maybe. But I've always seen resentment as something deeper.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'll have to pay close attention to you and pounce any time I see something I disagree with and see if you live up to this expectation.

You can just look up my arguments on the Pathfinder forum. A helluva lot easier for the both of us.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

You can just look up my arguments on the Pathfinder forum. A helluva lot easier for the both of us.

I'll hafta boot up the ol'VPN to do that.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'll hafta boot up the ol'VPN to do that.

On this board, that is.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

On this board, that is.

I'll wait for fresher, more organic content.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't know if you noticed, but we live in a society with a collectively established value-system. There is nothing under the sun that is "value-free". Not all ideas are worthy of consideration, and not all values are worthy of respect.

Again, this is within the domain of a privately-owned storefront, which, provided it does not sell literally everything under the sun, exhibits a degree of judgment of what will be sold and what will not. It is valuable to study hatred and bigotry in an academic sense, which is why I would never argue to ban a book from, say, a publicly funded library. But if I'm selling the stuff I get to pick which stuff I sell. Which values are my choices there going to reflect?


Your concern was that refusing to sell a product would upset people. The fact (observable, provable fact) is that not refusing to sell a product will also upset people. Given my limited understanding of quantum mechanics, I'm not sure a third option is possible (if you have one, please share!); the only choice is which group of people you are most comfortable with being upset. Which is, again, a reflection of what you value.

People get upset at all sorts if things. Most countries that are vaguely free have some sort of legal guideline. In the US that's the constitution. Here bull if rights act, human rights act and the Treaty if Waitangi being the mist relevant.

These laws exist because once upon a time when people got upset at others bad things happened.

People getting upset and offended is perfectly fine if not to be needed. It's what they do after that. You're never gonna get everyone on the same page.

HP Lovecraft came up earlier. Want to take a guess what was probably the most liberal city in the world in the 1920's?