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

[Mercurius]

But you refuse to show any evidence of that supposedly pervasive element, even in the face of others basically looking at you with surprise and saying, "what now? where!?". Or even to really explain how anyone has implied such a thing.

OK, how about this quote from Gradine, which you "liked"?

"Also, and maybe I'm overstepping something here, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Martin Niemöller might take exception with his work being remixed as "First they came for the fascists". I don't know, call me crazy."

That's all it inherently does. The rest depends on thespecific case. Like just about everything else in the world.

Okay. I have differing preferences for such a list, but a group of people with varying preferences would, one assumes, have a whole discussion about it before the final product was made and printed.

I think the point of such a list is to show influences on D&D, so I think it would be important to include even "problematic" authors.

But if you don't allow people to explain that you've misunderstood them, you're just making empty claims at others' expense.

I gave you an example above.

Regardless of intent, it equates one to the other. And again, the quote doesn't describe a slippery slope, so it's also a difference of type.

Sure. No one here is suggesting censorship, however. And no, it does not apply to criticism of a work and it's creator, or of public figures for their values and the implied values of their actions.

That seems pretty rigid, and missing what I'm saying about underlying logic, how this can lead to that. As if a quote can only be used to refer to the same thing the quote is talking about.

Except that the quote doesn't make the same argument as those examples, and in general it is distasteful to use things famously associated with the Holocaust in your arguments by reduction or comparison. There is always an alternative example that isn't from one of history's great genocides.

So I provided other analogies, but you're hung up on this.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I've read Volokh and his column before.

You mean the legal blog site. Not his "column," but the running website with numerous academics? That ... column? Okay. You know that this isn't a column, or even a post from that website, but an actual law review article (that he made available minus the citations).

And, by the way, that's EV (Eugene Volokh) given that he is one of two people with that surname (Sasha, aka Alexander).

But the quote you talking about is regarding restricting our freedoms through laws, codes, ordinances, etc. They don't apply to an individual's own actions to govern themselves. The whole point is how law can govern behavior, how subtle changes can influence one's actions simply by existing. I get that.

No, that's not what it's about. Look again at page 5- it has enumerated mechanisms that the remainder of the article discusses. Here, let's try one!

It can change people attitudes about the propriety of further action. That one is easy, right? So, let us assume that a group, we will call them the Morin Majority, pushes hard for private businesses to remove things that they don't like because they think that it causes harm and offends them. Should they succeed, others will do so as well! Because it has become proper to do so. Unless people start to make stands on principle (I don't want groups pressured to remove things) then this will become the norm- again, this is different tha n just voting with your wallet, or trying to educate people.

But wait, there's other applications!

The change on its own may be small enough, but in concert with other changes may create momentum for larger changes. For example, few people would decry the loss of GAZ10 on its own. Or OA on its own. Or any number of other legacy books, on their own. But each change makes it more likely that further changes can be made.

And, again, this was about you being dismissive regarding slippery slopes. Remember?

What I don't see any sort of application to what Wizards would be doing. Wizards governs itself in this situation and makes a choice to do these things with its own products. It carries no legal power over others, it has no hold over what others do unlike the government. It can set an example, though, and I would think that's what we would want them to do.

Really, it's not that I didn't read it. I just don't think the principle you are putting out there applies to a non-governmental entity's individual actions.

Again, if life was as simple as an XKCD comic, that would be great. There are people who understand state action who still necessarily opposed to pressuring private actors to remove their product- because principles of free speech matter.

It's basic rule utilitarianism as far as I am concerned- I value the rule, even when the application might seem suspect. We see this in many situations. For example, to use a legal analogy again, we often note two truths- the first is that all people can be represented in court proceedings by counsel. The second is that attorneys get to choose their clients. From these two things, we get the following-
A. When "the other side" is pressuring attorneys to drop out, people say that it's unfair, and that everyone has the right to have counsel.
B. When "our side" is pressuring attorneys to drop out, people say that attorneys get to choose their clients, and people are just choosing to make the attorneys have consequences for their choices.

It's the same here. When the other side has power, and is trying to restrict private entities from providing something, we will complain about the principles involved (as I had to do throughout the 80s and 90s and 00s). But when our side is doing it, when we have the power ... what?

Sorry- the hard slog of education, and teaching, and allowing sunlight to be the best disinfectant might seem old-fashioned, or too hard, or maybe just not even relevant given the last few years- but it's the principles that have gotten us to where we are today. Where we can celebrate diversity. Where we can recognize inclusion. Where people can game together openly regardless of their gender expression, or race, or creed, or any number of factors.

That's me. YMMV. For the rest- search my prior posts. This is a too-long thread.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

They're far less useful to do, however, as the arguer is likely to move the goalposts and in other ways not engage with the discussion in useful ways. Its usually a shorthand for "I don't think you're going to continue to discuss in good faith, and thus waste my time."

Basically, someone can find a discussion worthwhile, but not enough to waste time on someone who doesn't seem to actually be engaging with it honestly.

 

[Mercurius]

I did hyperbolize and strawman here, and for that I sincerely apologize. The invocation (and, frankly, misapplication) of the poem tweaked a nerve. It still does, but it's still no excuse.

I appreciate your apology, but I also used what you said as an example in my replies to other posters, but it exemplifies how "one side" isn't exempt from this sort of thing.

I will say, however, that comparing "first they came for the communists" with "first they delisted this heinously racist jokey orc book" is also patently absurd. And hyperbolic.

I think it was socialists, but that doesn't matter.

I don't think it is absurd to be concerned about de-platforming and censorship.

I'm not sure that many experts of their fields take the opinions of laypersons into consideration, nor should they. Regardless of however you feel about the "ideological orientation" (scare quotes intentional, in this case), it is a field, it does have experts, and they have many things that they agree upon which forms the foundation of their discipline. The question "who is making these decisions?" is easily answerable, as is the question of what standards they would apply; the foundations are built into the curriculum.

You may disagree with those standards, that curriculum, and the entire field in general, but it does not change the fact that your questions have fairly easy answers. Nor does it give your opinion more (or even anything close to equal) weight to the experts within the field

Nor does the word "expert" invalidate any other perspective. And we're not talking about hard sciences here, but social sciences. An expert in Freudian psychology may think that everything comes down to Freudian concepts, but tell that to a humanistic psychologist.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mean, honestly, @Snarf Zagyg , if you wanted something from Volokh that was a bit closer to the topic, you'd probably want this one. I think it honestly has more compelling arguments on the subject, but perhaps because of the subject it's not really directly applicable and more of a parallel argument.

I would not want to link either that article (for obvious reasons) or even his excellent and widely-cited article regarding Title VII and Free Speech. Neither are really on point.

That said, I would avoid anything from the last three years from him; given the Kozinski stuff and (more importantly) some of the 230 stuff. But that's way off topic.

 

[Justice and Rule]

But that's the whole point: it may not apply right now, in a specific moment, but that's why hypotheticals are important to consider. And again, my analogy of driving while looking five feet in front of you. Considering the road ahead is not "clouding the vision," it is broadening it.

But it is, because you can't engage with the actual topic in specifics because the actual topic itself is specific. This is not a general philosophy thing here, we have an actual situation to look at.

Um, that's what we're doing? And I have expressed my concerns. This is...odd. That's what I've been doing. If I hypothesize potential bad outcomes, you're going return to your focus on specifics, and ignore my driving analogy. And around and around we go.

Yes, because we are talking about a specific situation. If you can't come up with a potential bad situation on this specific situation, then what are we even talking about? Again, I find it weird that you can't engage with the actual situation, but have to sit back and talk about the general.

We fundamentally disagree on this. Again, refer to my driving analogy.

I mean, it's more like you're refusing the get off the highway because the surface streets are too narrow, and thus you've driven right past the discussion.

Now I'm confused. What, specifically, do you want clarity on?

Why did you say it was mixed if you didn't say there was anything wrong with it? That's my point: something isn't "mixed" if you don't have something bad to go with the good. You have to have the judgements in there for it to be mixed, otherwise it'd just be good or bad or indifferent.

I'm not saying do nothing about anything. We're specifically talking about older and out of print products. I think the case for doing nothing is sort of like playing pick-up sticks: it is hard to pull one out and not effect the whole pile. Or perhaps bull in a china shop works.

As I said, I also don't have a huge issue with some kind of disclaimer, but I think it may be enough to say, "This wasn't good, but we'll try to do better" - and maybe end of story. Unlike the OP's suggestions that you quoted, I don't think it has to be a long, drawn-out process of apologies, which has an element of public shaming to it, and can often be rather forced.

Finally, something of substance.

I don't get the whole "pick up sticks" thing: again, you can treat these things individually. This is not a legal process wherein you need to decide the fate of individuals, but rather looking at content that you own. This means you don't have to have a process that will have to be used dispassionately by others in a way that will affect people beyond your reach; you can just individually judge them on their merits and decide a response as appropriate.

Now you talk about public shaming, but I think a strong public apologies does way more than simply "We'll do better" because it shows actual action on the topic. Too often you get non-apologies from people, and one of the biggest problems we have in this whole thing is people not actually understanding the problematic nature of the product. I feel like being comprehensive is a way better show of good faith than a quiet assurance.

Again, we disagree on it. Again and again, please refer to my more recent analogy, that of driving. Do you really think that one should drive and only look five feet ahead? I'm not talking about making up tornados and semi trucks, but being aware, and recognizing how a short move right now can lead to all sorts of problems.

See above.

Again, you're never getting off the highway with your focus on the big picture. You have to go to the narrow specific streets. You talk about seeing more than 5 feet ahead, but you have to actually make it to your destination and you're not able to take the exit right now.

See above.

And within the last page I was accused of using a quote to defend fascists.

Eh, fair enough on that point, I suppose.

Um, that's kind of my point: there are many variations, but talking about the "other side" and how they're all irrational goes against your statement that you only like to look at specifics.

Because the specifics of the others side generally work like that, as you yourself pointed out. There are more dispassionate arguments, but they are not the ones that typically dominate this discourse.

 

[Thomas Shey]

(A) companies should always have to make all products perpetually available for purchase

Well, personally, I think companies shouldn't try to eternally control publication at all. In the digital publication age, if you don't want to deal with it any more, let someone else do so. Make it a rule you can't sell it. Until formats change so much there's no easy way to port them over, a free PDF in circulation is fundamentally forever, and requires no automatic action on the original publisher at all--they don't even have to exist.

 

[Cadence]

Well, personally, I think companies shouldn't try to eternally control publication at all. In the digital publication age, if you don't want to deal with it any more, let someone else do so. Make it a rule you can't sell it. Until formats change so much there's no easy way to port them over, a free PDF in circulation is fundamentally forever, and requires no automatic action on the original publisher at all--they don't even have to exist.

Part (B) wanted to know the view on "right to be forgotten".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Digital ownership can be a load of horse, is what I'm saying.

That's not a worse problem than physical ownership unless the source maintains the ability to remove it from your position. Less in formats that are easy to back up (which is not all of them: I own Kindle books but I look at them somewhat balefully because they aren't easy to back up, and in practice I'm more leasing than owning them.).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Part (B) wanted to know the view on "right to be forgotten".

Not a fan, personally. I understand some of the purposes in some cases--people say dumb things when they're young--but I don't think being able to scrub your past history on the whole serves good purposes.

(Note, there are some special cases here involving ant-doxxing protection, but I consider that a separate issue than being able to try and paper over what you've said and done digitally in the past).