D&D 5E Toxicity in the Fandom

[mythago]

Allow me to try to explain. Supposing I am responding to your post (as I actually am), and instead of saying what I am saying now I responded:

"So what you are basically saying is that puppies deserved to be kicked and caged? You're basically defending animal cruelty! Do you run a dog fighting ring?"

You would probably see that and wonder how in the heck I construe such nonsense from your post, or how I managed to come up with such an uncharitable response to what you said. You'd also probably think that I had underlying intent to slander you and present you in the worst possible light, and give mythago the name and reputation of one that abused animals.

And I read your post, and it's not as exaggerated as my hypothetical puppy kicking response but it seems to be in the same spirit.



We're neighbors. I would never be so rude to you as to report you to the moderators, in the same way I'd never call the police on my neighbors for playing their music too loud.

So I didn't in fact use an ad hominem attack or accuse the person I was responding to of being an awful person - I criticized their post with an interpretation you felt was unfair and in a tone you didn't like, and you accused me of being disingenous and "hateful". I trust you see the irony here?

As for moderators, you asked why my post was not "treated as" aggressive and hateful. That's an odd comment to make ("treated by" whom?) unless it was a complaint that I was unfairly escaping the modhammer.

I get that you disagree strongly with me on a wide variety of subjects, and that's fine. But I really don't understand rushing to the defense of a post that mocks and, yes, overgeneralizes about a group they allegedly disagree with and then complaining about civility.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Maybe.

Well, if you don't want to buy it, I can't force you. But its been very visible to me among both gaming and media fandom, and that's good enough for me.

And so I feel like the whole "internet sea change" narrative boils down to, "The fringe groups that are my enemies are more organized than ever before!" and I'm not sure that's the case. It's just easier to peak over the fence and see what the other side is doing. Maybe it is in fact harder to keep the gates shut and keep people from intruding in the Communist Knitting Circle that was planning the deaths of all the anti-revolutionary forces and avoid being mocked for it, or whatever, but that's what you get for planning your revolution online.

I carefully noted that its also true for groups I'm a member of and sympathetic with.

 

[Celebrim]

So I didn't in fact use an ad hominem attack or accuse the person I was responding to of being an awful person

No, let me be very clear here. I am saying you did and you did. "Joe is an idiot" is not an ad hominem attack. "Joe is an idiot" is merely an insult. Read your own definitions. "Joe's argument is wrong, because Joe is an idiot" is an ad hominem attack. And you post is very much of that character.

And no I don't see the irony.

But I really don't understand rushing to the defense of a post that mocks and, yes, overgeneralizes about a group they allegedly disagree with and then complaining about civility.

Because I don't necessarily find mocking of positions to be uncivil. I think the community of people that have adopted fault finding, puritanical, outrage as a culture very much do get taken with more seriousness than they deserve. They are hijacking legitimate subjects of legitimate concern and deploying that as a cover to promote strategies for dealing with those issues that are problematic and destructive and thereby preventing more serious and helpful dialogues from occurring. And humor has a role in that. That his gentle mockery would be enough to offend someone strikes me as ridiculous as if some of the maybe less gentle mockery of Vegans caused some Vegan on the board to start complaining about how mean everyone was.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, if you don't want to buy it, I can't force you.

This may not be obvious, but when I say "maybe" it's because I'm not 100% convinced I agree with myself. Sometimes I'm bouncing things off you to see if I think I believe them. That "Maybe" says, I can see good arguments both ways and I'm not entirely sure where I stand. One of the problems I find is that quite often the answers to things are "yes" or "no" but like "55% of that and 45% of the other". And it can be very hard to explain using human language, that tends to be very good at describe the categorical, but not so good and describing differences of degree.

And a lot of my "maybe" comes less from disagreement with your argument, but from prior experience with what people who make that argument push a remedy to the problem. In other words, I admit I distrust your motives in making such an argument (which is often I recognize the reason people are so skeptical of my arguments, and also why I sympathize with why they might be skeptical).

 

[Umbran]

Is that heresy in your quasi-religious fandom ...

Mod Note:
In a thread about toxicity, this is how you talk to people?

The irony is thick, and you are done in this discussion.

Hint: the root of avoiding toxicity is respect of people, which you clearly lost here.

 

[Irlo]

One doesn’t have to be offended or outraged to recognize behavior as disrespectful. Suggesting that criticisms are coming from a place of misplaced outrage feels dismissive to me, not conducive to conversation.

 

[Faolyn]

I suspect it is less about the popularity with the audience, and more about the preferences of the people who make the movies.

The Bechdel Test gets a lot of press now, but it was never really a test to weigh whether an individual movie is or isn't sexist. It was making a point about Hollywood, and how if you imposed the very low bar that a movie must have "two women talking about something other than the man", you'd see very few movies indeed.

I know that, but that's also not what I was talking about. I was talking about some pretty male-dominated movie genres.

 

[Faolyn]

But, it may just be the case that the person who is reporting everyone is a trouble maker, and typically in my experience is this is actually the case. Not always the case but usually. I mean it can also be the case that the person everyone is reporting isn't actually saying anything offensive, he's just saying things that are unpopular or that the reporting against him is part of a group bullying campaign.

Or it could be that that person is saying something offensive and you don't recognize it as such.

For instance, a little while ago, there was a thread here wherein a certain "harmless" insult (spaz) was discussed and several people had no idea it was is actually an ableist slur. Another thread here informed me for the first time that milk is sometimes used as a racist dogwhistle--I hadn't heard that before. I saw a post on reddit by a person from Australia who honestly didn't know that a certain word, common there, is considered probably the worst non-racist vulgarity in America (I'm sure you can figure out the word).

So maybe a person who is reporting everyone is a trouble maker--but maybe someone whom everyone is reporting actually is being offensive, and you, or the mods, or whoever, just doesn't realize it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Or it could be that that person is saying something offensive and you don't recognize it as such.

For instance, a little while ago, there was a thread here wherein a certain "harmless" insult (spaz) was discussed and several people had no idea it was is actually an ableist slur. Another thread here informed me for the first time that milk is sometimes used as a racist dogwhistle--I hadn't heard that before. I saw a post on reddit by a person from Australia who honestly didn't know that a certain word, common there, is considered probably the worst non-racist vulgarity in America (I'm sure you can figure out the word).

So maybe a person who is reporting everyone is a trouble maker--but maybe someone whom everyone is reporting actually is being offensive, and you, or the mods, or whoever, just doesn't realize it.

Some words very offensive in USA aren't a big deal in Australia and NZ.

Some have positive connotations depending on how they're used.

Australians also swear a bit so do we relative to USA. Every swear word here is about as offensive as the word damn in USA with the exception of an F bomb which still counts as swearing but isn't that offensive any more.

C words still bad but Australia and NZ have a few sayings using it that has positive connotations.

Australians can also turn the word mate into an insult and a punch out.

 

[BB Shockwave]

But I honestly question the feeling of entitlement that leads to that. If you don't like something, then just don't buy it. Vote with your wallet. You don't have to terrorize the creators of the product because they have failed to live up to some type of vision.

That's an inherently flawed concept, because of the little matter of COPYRIGHT.
If, say, I dislike new Star Wars and Star Trek, there is no way for me and other disgruntled fans to fund a different sequel trilogy and hire Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford and re-create Carrie Fisher from CGI because Disney would sue our asses.
And I am well aware that there are 'almost but not quite' copycats around. Transformers have "third party" toys (a nice name for knockoffs), several miniature companies make "not-quite Space Marines/Necrons/Tyranids" that skirt the edges of copyright law, and The Orville basically exists because Seth MacFarlane wanted to create a new season of Star Trek The Next Generation and since Paramount did not OK, that , he just made his own knockoff Star Trek show, with blackjack and hookers, as Bender would say.

But these things are not the same, they are just similar. Would you have told someone who disliked 4E D&D to just go play Pathfinder instead? Maybe in the early years, Pathfinder was just 3.5E in a different universe, but since then even before PF 2.0 came out, it has become incredibly different with character classes and races and rules that D&D never had. And that's not mentioning all the races and characters and locations Paizo cannot use because WotC owns them. You could play it that way, but you would always feel that you are just playing a knockoff of the product you really wanted from the original creators in the first place.

There's also the slightly complicated issue of "You're doing it wrong!", wherein a product is inevitable, but you dislike the way it's been done, but can do nothing about it aside from not buy it. Like, you can definitely rag on me for this, but I strongly suspect that WotC are going to bring out a Planescape-y book, and also that it's going to be as bland as butter & plain white bread sandwich (where the original Planescape was a bizarre banquet probably involving a lot of things a lot of people didn't want to eat!), and I'm pre-emptively inclined to be annoyed by that because it's going to set the tone for Planescape for at least this edition, and likely for the rest of eternity. And you can say "Well do it right yourself", but dude, if I do that, I may well get sued, right? Because that's how IP law works.

Thanks! Exactly that!
Though I have hopes for Planescape to be more or less what it used to be - perhaps with some regulations now changed to optional rules. Ravenloft sure was quite neutered in places, but even that product made it clear you cannot save or redeem a Darklord. I am expecting Spelljammer and Planescape will be more close to the original settings.
What I worry about is Dark Sun, if and when that gets rebooted you know it will be neutered. Slavery, cannibalism, oppression, lack of real deities, making it almost impossible to play a wizard and not get stoned to death once you are discovered, not to mention the survival mechanics... I think most of that will be thrown out. Guess we will see, as Spelljammer's miniature set has a lot of Dark Sun creatures.