D&D 5E Toxicity in the Fandom

[FrozenNorth]

Yes this is discussing what I have been talking about. Toxic isn't a community, its a behavior. Certain communities might promote or accept toxic behavior, but its still the behavior and not the people.

Wait, wait! I think there is a germ of a brilliant idea here! What if we start a toxic fandom community? That way, the members of the community could gatekeep what constitutes toxic fandom among themselves and leave the rest of us alone !

 

[Vaalingrade]

He's clearly opposed to aggressive and hateful behavior.

They literally, as a grown person in the Year of Our Lord 2022, used the word 'fee-fees' in an aggressive and hateful way.

 

[payn]

Wait, wait! I think there is a germ of a brilliant idea here! What if we start a toxic fandom community? That way, the members of the community could gatekeep what constitutes toxic fandom among themselves and lesve the rest of us alone !

Wouldn't that be swell. Unfortunately, I think some of the appeal of toxic behavior is causing a reaction in others.

Also, I will say there are some communities that are based in toxic behavior. I was more implying situations like criticism of things. There might be a legion of chuckleheads review booming movies they have not seen, but that doesn't mean everyone who disliked the movie(s) is part of that community. Though, sometimes folks write them off because they are so tired of the toxicity on the topic in general.

 

[AnotherGuy]

They literally, as a grown person in the Year of Our Lord 2022, used the word 'fee-fees' in an aggressive and hateful way.

I think before we all rush to define toxic, we may need to define the words aggressive and hateful

 

[Celebrim]

They literally, as a grown person in the Year of Our Lord 2022, used the word 'fee-fees' in an aggressive and hateful way.

Really? Did he really? Was his language really so strong? You literally as a grown person in the Year of Our Lord 2022 are really hurt and offended by "Not for some "oh someone hurt my fee-fees" nonsense." Is that heresy in your quasi-religious fandom that you had to cover your ears or your mouth in shock? Does someone need smiting now?

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think before we all rush to define toxic, we may need to define the words aggressive and hateful

Attempts at mockery that would make a bully in an 80's movie feel shame?

 

[BB Shockwave]

Take the latest campaign setting, Spelljammer. I seriously can't figure it out. Giant hamsters in space? Oozes wearing leather armor? Carnivorous asteroids? It's so removed from what I consider "heroic fantasy" that I can't tell if I'm completely out of touch with the hobby, or everyone is playing an elaborate prank on me.

I am always surprised when people do this type of reaction when D&D brings out an existing old setting. Like, google/wikipedia exists, surely anyone who saw the announcement looked into it, or maybe notice that WotC said they are bringing Spelljammer BACK, IE it existed before?
If this setting confuses you, I wonder what you will say about the giant ring shaped city in the middle of the multiverse, ruled by an enigmatic goddess in an iron mask whose shadow can cut you to ribbons, and maintained by floating humanoids who talk by conjuring up pictures in speech bubbles above their heads, and where people join various sects that have such strong belief in various ideals that they can literally shape that belief and gain powers from it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Really? Did he really? Was his language really so strong? You literally as a grown person in the Year of Our Lord 2022 are really hurt and offended by "Not for some "oh someone hurt my fee-fees" nonsense." Is that heresy in your quasi-religious fandom that you had to cover your ears or your mouth in shock? Does someone need smiting now?

There is nothing 'quasi' in my religious fandom. I am all about Demeter and Bacchus.

 

[billd91]

No it's pretty obviously not his point. HIs point was that people in a fandom can and should still talk to each other respectfully despite having quasi-religious schisms. I think however your response illustrates his point perfectfully, because you immediately leaped to an ad hominem attack that took what he said in the worst possible light and even went so far as to twist it. He never defended any of those behaviors. The whole passive aggressive asking him that question is rude in the exact same what that "oh you say you are a fan? Prove it.".

He's clearly opposed to aggressive and hateful behavior. Why isn't your post treated as such?

Then I think you missed a significant portion of his post since it was also disparaging about people using the term toxic to describe bad behavior, whereas he equated it with simply having a different opinion. And I'm not seeing anyone significantly using it in that manner. Simon Pegg certainly didn't in his statement about toxicity of the Star Wars fan community.

 

[Celebrim]

I never hated Rey, or the 4 ladies in Ghostbusters 2016. They were actors doing a job, and they did it to the best of their abilities. It was the writing that was atrocious.

Leaving aside that the writing was terrible, which isn't the fault of the actors - some of whom I've really liked in other roles, the thing that gets me is that I've always felt that distaff characters were inherently sexist. The feel to me like the worst impulses of the Silver Age comic books, where they run out of ideas completely and then introduce the female counterpart of the hero. Those characters are always inherently subordinate to the originals. Supergirl is the female superman, not a character who was initially a character in her own right.

So while I accept that for historical reasons we may have to accept a distaff like character like Supergirl even though it's not a perfect situation, and do our best to try to make her a character a stands on her own and not merely the female Superman with fan service for Superman fans, what I don't accept is that creating modern distaff characters is anything but sexist in the first place. We shouldn't repeat mistakes of the past that we know our mistakes. We can create new characters and new roles that happen to be racially diverse. We don't have to, and we shouldn't - as moral imperative - be creating roles that are 'the girl superman' or 'the black superman' as if doing so was anything but the opposite of being respectful.

I don't understand how we got to the point that feminists were defending distaff ghostbusters characters as anything but a repulsive idea.