D&D General The Art and the Artist: Discussing Problematic Issues in D&D

[teitan]

See, here's the thing: being able to just not be interested in matters of equity and justice is an example of privilege at work.

A lot of marginalized people don't get that choice.

So I’m not disagreeing with you but you just committed an example of what he’s saying and you’re 100% right and that’s why these things are steps and take time to happen. When people feel preached at they don’t listen but it even extends into those marginalized people at the same time. They don’t want to listen to it either after a certain point even when it benefits them. It’s kind of crazy. Sometimes people shut down because even when they go above and beyond to do these things they feel like they’re being told it’s never enough and they just give up and stop listening to anyone. It does become a sort of passive bullying which is recognized as a form of abusive. To continually repeat the same criticism at someone over and over, even with the best intention and when they are making a genuine attempt to make those changes being addressed, it turns into abuse as browbeating. Does it excuse the other abuses going on? Nah. And I’m definitely not saying shut up or stop or anything but just the mechanism of why people quit listening, including those who are the perceived beneficiary of the advice so don’t take this as me saying anything like “you should stop or shut up”. I don’t think you’re bullying anyone.

 

[S'mon]

Re Blazing Saddles, I remember Lindsay Ellis saying it was ok for Mel Brooks to do jokes about Nazis (The Producers), because he was Jewish. But other people shouldn't. Maybe you have to be black to make jokes about racism. Personally I don't agree with Ellis.

However I think if you find someone repellent, it's very much ok not to purchase/view/read their artistic creations. I pretty much never feel that way about expressed opinions, but when I know a creator has done horrible things to other people, I definitely tend not to want to engage with their creations. So I'll avoid looking at the RPG products of the Norwegian church-burning murderer. I might avoid his products because of his political views too, especially if those appear to be expressed in his work, but it's the actions that are the main repellent.

 

[Gradine]

So I’m not disagreeing with you but you just committed an example of what he’s saying and you’re 100% right and that’s why these things are steps and take time to happen. When people feel preached at they don’t listen but it even extends into those marginalized people at the same time. They don’t want to listen to it either after a certain point even when it benefits them. It’s kind of crazy. Sometimes people shut down because even when they go above and beyond to do these things they feel like they’re being told it’s never enough and they just give up and stop listening to anyone. It does become a sort of passive bullying which is recognized as a form of abusive. To continually repeat the same criticism at someone over and over, even with the best intention and when they are making a genuine attempt to make those changes being addressed, it turns into abuse as browbeating. Does it excuse the other abuses going on? Nah. And I’m definitely not saying shut up or stop or anything but just the mechanism of why people quit listening, including those who are the perceived beneficiary of the advice so don’t take this as me saying anything like “you should stop or shut up”. I don’t think you’re bullying anyone.

I would argue that I was succinct enough to avoid proselytizing, but I see your point as well. Hell, if any of this were simply or easy, we'd be a lot further along the path to justice than we are right now, that's for certain.

 

[teitan]

That's also true.

Because privilege is thrown around as an insult, it's hard to use the word without some listeners thinking it's being used as one.

The evolution of language and the removal of terms from their context, such as privilege in this context, like the touchy Critical Race Theory, from its academic area into modern jargon, has encrusted both with barnacles that have confused their meaning. To the layman racism and prejudice mean the exact same thing but when academics discuss racism they are discussing systemic elements and not necessarily that Bob is prejudice so when the academic says “Bob takes part in the white privilege of a racist system” Bob hears “Bob is prejudice and hates black people”, not “Bob lives in a country where the laws for 100 years were written to target minorities and other marginalized communities that as a result of the luck of birth he is not a member of”. When Bob hears Fox News discuss “Critical Race Theory” in schools he doesn’t hear that it’s a masters degree level course taught to law students discussing how race played a role in determining housing markets, traffic lights and drug laws but that his kids are going to learn about how “white people did bad things and his kids are bad because they are white”. Bob is scared of a ghost because Bob isn’t an academic. We don’t have a culture that rewards academia and have moved away from a culture that has some respect for people of intelligence unless they can blow stuff up real good.

 

[MGibster]

Re Blazing Saddles, I remember Lindsay Ellis saying it was ok for Mel Brooks to do jokes about Nazis (The Producers), because he was Jewish. But other people shouldn't. Maybe you have to be black to make jokes about racism. Personally I don't agree with Ellis.

That wasn't the thrust of Lindsey's argument. She argued that the way Mel Brooks criticized the Nazis was in a manner that made them seem foolish or stupid. Nobody is going to watch The Producers and be able to walk away with any sort of positive impression of Nazis. Whereas in a movie like American History X, even though it's got an anti-Nazi message, the audience can still away thinking that Derek Vinyard was a badass. Another example she used was a Halloween episode of South Park where Cartman's ghost costume resembled a KKK outfit and when Chef saw it he beast a hasty retreat. The problem was that the Klan wasn't the butt of the joke there. Brooks' jokes about the Nazis worked, according to Ellis, because they made the Nazis look stupid, weak, and not at all badass or powerful.

 

[teitan]

That wasn't the thrust of Lindsey's argument. She argued that the way Mel Brooks criticized the Nazis was in a manner that made them seem foolish or stupid. Nobody is going to watch The Producers and be able to walk away with any sort of positive impression of Nazis. Whereas in a movie like American History X, even though it's got an anti-Nazi message, the audience can still away thinking that Derek Vinyard was a badass. Another example she used was a Halloween episode of South Park where Cartman's ghost costume resembled a KKK outfit and when Chef saw it he beast a hasty retreat. The problem was that the Klan wasn't the butt of the joke there. Brooks' jokes about the Nazis worked, according to Ellis, because they made the Nazis look stupid, weak, and not at all badass or powerful.

Yeah that’s precisely why I didn’t like American History X. I know people who loved it and got the message about the evils of the cycle of violence. I also know people who watched it and saw a message that Re-enforced their internalized prejudices that minorities are bad.

 

[Bedrockgames]

See, here's the thing: being able to just not be interested in matters of equity and justice is an example of privilege at work.

A lot of marginalized people don't get that choice.

I think this is simplifying. You are assuming it is all privileged people taking position A and all marginalized people taking position B. That is far from the case.

Some people hear this loud and clear, but they don't agree with the conclusion you are drawing or they don't agree with all of the implications you are drawing from it. Or they just think it is more complicated than you are presenting. My point is people may be listening, but have reached a point where they aren't interested in being converted to your point of view.

 

[payn]

Yeah that’s precisely why I didn’t like American History X. I know people who loved it and got the message about the evils of the cycle of violence. I also know people who watched it and saw a message that Re-enforced their internalized prejudices that minorities are bad.

It's true, I've always had a hard time about the depictions in AmX. I ran into a few guys that just loved that violence was depicted in ways they agreed with. Totally disregarded the message as academic stuff.

 

[Umbran]

People also get defensive and resistant when they feel preached to or lectured at. These things are a two-way street. Sometimes people aren't listening, sometimes people are proselytizing and don't realize people have heard them but simply aren't interested in converting.

If you aren't interested, maybe sticking around in the conversation and arguing is a poor choice for all involved?

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you aren't interested, maybe sticking around in the conversation and arguing is a poor choice for all involved?

I am interested in the overall conversation. But I think we ought to give our point of view when we disagree with something and explain why we think a particular point isn't convincing everyone. If that isn't allowed, I will happily step out of the thread. But I think what I am saying is a fair response (especially to a rhetorical tactic that pretty much says you can't disagree with this)