D&D 5E Toxicity in the Fandom

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, wait, you just contradicted yourself.

No. You just didn't read what I wrote with an eye toward understanding, as opposed to argument.

The welcoming was toward people that were considered outcasts in ways people do not fully grok now, but were very apparent back then. That said, I've written about these subjects before-

[+] Pride Month- A Brief History of Representation in TTRPGs

Please note that this is a "Plus" (+) thread, and is meant to be Positive. (Source) If you don't have something productive to say, please don't say it. In addition, there will be references to games mature subject matter in this post. While it is not explicit, it is present. So June is LGBTQI+...

www.enworld.org

That you immediately leap to attack that past practice as bullying and gatekeeping shows that you don't want to engage with the differences that the past had. That is neither to reify nor to dignify it, but it was different.

And, most importantly, you snipped out part (in order to hunt a "contradiction" and make your own argument) while completely missing the entire point of what I was writing- that if the TTRPG, however imperfectly, provided a space for people that did not fit in, then the best way to honor that is to continue expanding the space so that people who are marginalized today find it welcoming.

But thanks.

 

[Raunalyn]

This is an unfortunate fallacy.

Nobody describes themselves as woke. It's a pejorative attack-term used to dismiss people and characterise them the way you're describe, completely regardless of their actual behaviour or views.

Kind of ruined your argument immediately there, by buying into pure fantasy.

Not to argue, but the interview I posted kind of contradicts your words. You may believe what you say is true, but there are people who believe that using that term to describe themselves is a virtue.

Person A - But [Racist canard]!
Person B - That's a racist canard.
Person A - OMGGGG HOW DARE U CALL ME A RACIST?!??!?!
Person B - I didn't, I said you were repeating a racist canard..
Person A - AAARRHHRHRHFHGHGHHGHGH YOUR STILL CALLING ME RACIST!!!! WHY ARE YOU WOKE LIBERALS SO AWFUL TO US HONEST FOLK!!?!?
Person B - Okay you're having a meltdown, and cannot be reasoned with, so I'm blocking you.
Person A - SEE SEE SEE THEY REFUSE TO BE REASONED WITH!!!!

Except when a person actually calls another person a racist. Not tell them that it's a racist canard...actually accuses them of being a racist. Your scenario doesn't hold.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Not to argue, but the interview I posted contradicts your words. You may believe what you say is true, but there are people who believe that using that term to describe themselves is a virtue.

McWhorter is an out-of-date pundit, who gets wheeled out by the right, because he blames Black attitudes, not racism for Black poverty (though he is inconsistent on this and has socialist views that the right tends to be careful to avoid getting him to express). He's not some sort of great thinker or figure we should all be listening to. He's had nothing new to say since the 1990s, even though I'm guess he's "new to you". And to be fair to him, back he wasn't out of touch, like, 30 years ago, people absolutely did use "woke" to describe themselves. But that was 30 years ago. I'm getting the feeling I'm vastly more familiar with him than you.

The idea that someone under 40 is using "woke" to describe themselves and then as a "bludgeon" (i.e. "I'm woke, you're not") is truly ridiculous/laughable. It's just funny, it's not even like, angering. There's plenty of silly conflict that goes on without inventing imaginary silly conflicts (something also done by the left, I note) to pile on top of those. McWhorter is replaying something from his college days as if it were relevant now.

Except when a person actually calls another person a racist. Not tell them that it's a racist canard...actually accuses them of being a racist. Your scenario doesn't hold.

Except my scenario does hold, because it plays out all the time. People constantly assert that someone saying what they said was racist is calling them a racist. A lot of people are simply unable to process the difference between "What you're saying is racist" and "You're a racist". People dear to me have this problem even, even calling themselves racists when they're not actually racist, just repeating views that are racist.

And even in the alternative, if it's alright for you to go around labelling people "woke" and claiming they're "bludgeoning" people without actually having talked to them (and you doing exactly that - you're making some pretty sweeping assertions), then is it actually wrong to call people who insist on repeating racism, racist? It's an oversimplification, but not a grotesque one.

I mean, I'd say it was (in the "incorrect" rather than "immoral" sense), but I'm definitely in the minority here, and that's not a left-right thing. Most people are totally happy to label people based on what they're saying, without proper discussion. Trying to pretend that's "just the left" is really silly shenanigans.

 

[Raunalyn]

The idea that someone under 40 is using "woke" to describe themselves and then as a "bludgeon" (i.e. "I'm woke, you're not") is truly ridiculous/laughable. It's just funny, it's not even like, angering. There's plenty of silly conflict that goes on without inventing imaginary silly conflicts (something also done by the left, I note) to pile on top of those. McWhorter is replaying something from his college days as if it were relevant now.

What if they're over 40?

Except my scenario does hold, because it plays out all the time. People constantly assert that someone saying what they said was racist is calling them a racist. A lot of people are simply unable to process the difference between "What you're saying is racist" and "You're a racist". People dear to me have this problem even, even calling themselves racists when they're not actually racist, just repeating views that are racist.

Except it is a non sequitor...my original comment specifically stated when someone calls another person a racist.

And even in the alternative, if it's alright for you to go around labelling people "woke" and claiming they're "bludgeoning" people without actually having talked to them (and you doing exactly that - you're making some pretty sweeping assertions), then is it actually wrong to call people who insist on repeating racism, racist? It's an oversimplification, but not a grotesque one.

You are attacking a strawman. I did not go around making sweeping assertions; I specifically mentioned who I have a problem with...and I don't think you can deny that there are people out there who are just as I described. Here it is again for your reference

"I do have a problem with those who hide behind that label because they think it provides them a sense of moral superiority to those whom they disagree with."

McWhorter is an out-of-date pundit, who gets wheeled out by the right, because he blames Black attitudes, not racism for Black poverty (though he is inconsistent on this and has socialist views that the right tends to be careful to avoid getting him to express). He's not some sort of great thinker or figure we should all be listening to. He's had nothing new to say since the 1990s, even though I'm guess he's "new to you". And to be fair to him, back he wasn't out of touch, like, 30 years ago, people absolutely did use "woke" to describe themselves. But that was 30 years ago. I'm getting the feeling I'm vastly more familiar with him than you.

Ok, attack the person, not the idea...got it.

At this point, I am going to respectfully bow out of this conversation.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You are attacking a strawman. I did not go around making sweeping assertions; I specifically mentioned who I have a problem with...and I don't think you can deny that there are people out there who are just as I described. Here it is again for your reference

I absolutely can, should, must and will deny that there's "basically anyone" under about 40 or 45 who "hides behind" describing themselves as "woke" and "uses it as a bludgeon". That's absolutely wild 1980/1990s nonsense.

Ok, attack the person, not the idea...got it.

You promoted the person as having great ideas. I am familiar with the person. He has thoroughly mediocre ideas and stopped developing those ideas much before the year 2000.

Except it is a non sequitor...my original comment specifically stated when someone calls another person a racist.

No, I'm afraid not. You cannot insist on that. The fact is, many people react to being told what they're saying is racist, by treating that as an accusation that they, themselves, are racist. It's unfortunate but that's how it is.

And again, if it's wrong to label people "racist" merely because they "said a racist thing" (or often - a whole bunch of racist things!) - then it's wrong to label people are "liberals" or "woke" or what-have-you because they "said a liberal thing", yet I don't see any objections to that. This seems to be special pleading that people shouldn't be accused of being racist, specifically, which isn't reasonably imho. How do you feel about people being called "groomers"?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What if they're over 40?

 

[billd91]

The idea that someone under 40 is using "woke" to describe themselves and then as a "bludgeon" (i.e. "I'm woke, you're not") is truly ridiculous/laughable. It's just funny, it's not even like, angering. There's plenty of silly conflict that goes on without inventing imaginary silly conflicts (something also done by the left, I note) to pile on top of those.

As much as conservatives are bashing people with the term and generating conflict there, that's a really ignorant statement that a short amount of searching on Twitter can alleviate.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As much as conservatives are bashing people with the term and generating conflict there, that's a really ignorant statement that a short amount of searching on Twitter can alleviate.

I mean, I don't see anyone under 40 calling themselves "woke" unless they've had the label stuck to them by detractors, and are using it ironically.

I particularly don't see anyone saying "You're not woke, so you're a bad person!", that's such a hilariously antediluvian thing to say. Like there's a "Wokehammer" lady (who seems very nice and a little motherly in videos, not what you'd expect), but she doesn't go around saying "UR NOT WOKE!!!" nor did she call herself that until so many people attempted to insult her by calling her "woke".

 

[Raunalyn]

And again, if it's wrong to label people "racist" merely because they "said a racist thing" (or often - a whole bunch of racist things!) - then it's wrong to label people are "liberals" or "woke" or what-have-you because they "said a liberal thing", yet I don't see any objections to that. This seems to be special pleading that people shouldn't be accused of being racist, specifically, which isn't reasonably imho. How do you feel about people being called "groomers"?

I will only say this final thing and then drop it.

The scenario I mentioned said that one person called the other person a racist. In fact, that was actually what was said; "You're a racist!"

Do tell me...where in my original comment did I label anyone "woke" or "liberal" because they "said a liberal thing?" I described a subset of people as acting a certain way, and it was they whom I have a problem with.

I personally despise the term "groomer." I have a son who is LGTBQ+ and I am 100% an ally, and I loathe people ascribing my son's lifestyle using that term.

I absolutely can, should, must and will deny that there's "basically anyone" under about 40 or 45 who "hides behind" describing themselves as "woke" and "uses it as a bludgeon".

I will attribute that to your limited experience and acknowledge that you may think it's true.

Have a good day.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I personally despise the term "groomer." I have a son who is LGTBQ+ and I am 100% an ally, and I loathe people ascribing my son's lifestyle using that term.

Just a small thing- it's great you're an ally, but that's a specific term you might want to avoid in reference to your son (or anyone in the LGBTQ+ community).