Mods shutting down threads for threadcrapping

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, heaven forbid anyone ever have an idea or an opinion that differs from the majority.

Passive agressive mockery is pathetic.

Mod Note:

Could we keep the level of snark this particular thread to a minimum?

 

[beancounter]

do your opinions change when presented with new evidence?

Both are valid methods. Effectiveness clearly varies.. Voting with you dollars can work. Remember "new" Coke, the Chevy Nova, or Betamax?

I think it's niave to believe that posts from a single forum influence WoTC.

 

[Mercurius]

I find it disturbing how quickly disagreeing with the majority is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I mean maybe I missed a memo, but is the culture of this board now that if you don't agree and echo the dominant sentiment of a thread, you shouldn't post in a thread? Hopefully that isn't the case. It is one thing to (rightfully) castigate obvious bigotry, quite another to accuse anyone questioning whether something is bigotry or not, as being a bigot.

Having different views on what is or is not racism does not mean one is racist, or "not getting it" and needing to be educated. Sometimes people just disagree with what constitutes racism or is problematic. I'd like to think that this is a community that would embrace, ah, a diversity of viewpoints on such matters, and not fall into OneTrueWayism in terms of how this or that must be interpreted, and if you don't interpret it the Right Way, then you're one of them.

Or more to the point, if you don't automatically think the depiction of the hadozee in the Spelljammer product is problematic or racist, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're ignorant or, worse, racist. It may simply mean that you interpret the data differently. Again: clear and obvious bigotry and questioning whether something is bigotry are not the same thing.

What I see happen again and again and again on this forum is that someone links to the latest outraged tweet, and there's a large outcry of echoing outrage, and then some folks say "I don't see it" or "I disagree," and then the latter folks get attacked and/or labeled as "anti-inclusive" even though they're not excluding something but rather, ironically, their view is being excluded from discourse.

Maybe ENW isn't the place to talk about such things, but if they're going to be talked about, I'd hope it could be a place where people feel safe to share their views, regardless of whether they agree with the majority view or not. I understand and support not allowing actual, outright bigotry, but differences of interpretation are an important part of such discourse.

Edited for clarity.

 

[Irlo]

I find it disturbing how quickly disagreeing with the majority is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I mean maybe I missed a memo, but is the culture of this board now that if you don't agree and echo the dominant sentiment of a thread, you shouldn't post in a thread? Hopefully that isn't the case. It is one thing to (rightfully) castigate obvious bigotry, quite another to question whether something is bigotry.

I don't read everything in these forums, so you might be seeing something that I'm not. I don't see that disagreement is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I think that dismissiveness is.

What I see happen again and again and again on this forum is that someone links to the latest outraged tweet, and there's a large outcry of echoing outrage, and then some folks say "I don't see it" or "I disagree," and then the latter folks get attacked and/or labeled as "anti-inclusive" even though they're not excluding something but rather, ironically, their view is being excluded from discourse.

Whereas what I see happen again and again is that criticism is characterized as outrage -- usually with the point being that the outrage is misplaced, manufactured, out of proportion, or actually sought after by the aggreived. "If you look for problems, you'll find them. Being offended on behalf of someone else. Screaming racist at everyone who disagrees with you." I read these sorts of comments not as earnest disagreement and engagement in the conversation, but as active and intentional marginalization of others' thoughts and concerns and experience.

I don't recall anyone who simply posted "I don't see it" get the sorts of responses you're citing.

But, repeating for emphasis: I don't read everything in these forums, so you might be seeing something that I'm not.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't read everything in these forums, so you might be seeing something that I'm not. I don't see that disagreement is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I think that dismissiveness is.

Disagreement and dismissiveness seem to be somewhat of a spectrum, and a matter of interpretation. Plus, I think most of what you call "dismissive" is not dismissing the problem of actual racism, but disagreeing with an interpretation on what constitutes racism.

So I'm not sure how one can disagree without it being interpreted by some as dismissive.

Whereas what I see happen again and again is that criticism is characterized as outrage -- usually with the point being that the outrage is misplaced, manufactured, out of proportion, or actually sought after by the aggreived. "If you look for problems, you'll find them. Being offended on behalf of someone else. Screaming racist at everyone who disagrees with you." I read these sorts of comments not as earnest disagreement and engagement in the conversation, but as active and intentional marginalization of others' thoughts and concerns and experience.

I don't recall anyone who simply posted "I don't see it" get the sorts of responses you're citing.

But, repeating for emphasis: I don't read everything in these forums, so you might be seeing something that I'm not.

Yeah, I see that, but disagree with your interpretation - at least insofar as such comments being inherently dismissive or disingenuous (aka, trolling). We're in a bind: How can someone voice disagreement without it being seen as dismissive? Meaning, if someone earnestly feels the way you express in that quote, how are they to communicate that? Should they just be quiet and not participate? Should they assume they are in the wrong and seek to learn the proper way to see things, perhaps examine their own defensiveness, even if they don't feel like they're defensive, but assume that they are?

When people say "I don't see it," what usually happens is that those who "see it" see it as an opportunity to educate them, and if they continue not to see it (that is, disagree with the interpretation), they're labeled as anti-inclusive or dismissive, or condescendingly as "not ready to see yet." What if someone can see and understand the interpretation, but just disagrees with it?

Meaning, I'm pointing to a problem of underlying intolerance for different viewpoints. An us vs. them mentality that I think does great harm and prevents actual understanding of different viewpoints and sows further division. I'm advocating for greater tolerance of different viewpoints - not of actual bigoted ones, mind you - and not assuming that "if you don't see things as I do, that X, Y, and Z are racist, then you're dismissive or racist yourself." It is a kind of intolerance and division that is poisoning our culture, including the RPG community.

And just to be clear, I do think that some on "the other side" hav their problems too, mainly having to do with diminishing the prevalence of systemic bigotry and the lived experience of those who have experienced prejudice. Not everyone who disagrees with every outcry of racism, maybe not even most, but some. But again, not seeing the depiction of the hadozee as racist (for example) doesn't mean one dismisses the experience of another.

 

[payn]

But again, not seeing the depiction of the hadozee as racist (for example) doesn't mean one dismisses the experience of another.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened in the locked thread. Poster was specifically gaslighting folks.

 

[Mercurius]

Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened in the locked thread. Poster was specifically gaslighting folks.

I didn't follow that thread word for word, but did they dismiss the lived experience of another--that is, outside the context of the topic at hand--or just their interpretation of the hadozee? That's a crucial difference.

 

[Irlo]

Disagreement and dismissiveness seem to be somewhat of a spectrum, and a matter of interpretation. Plus, I think most of what you call "dismissive" is not dismissing the problem of actual racism, but disagreeing with an interpretation on what constitutes racism.

So I'm not sure how one can disagree without it being interpreted by some as dismissive.

It doesn't seem that hard to me. Don't tell people they're not experiencing what they tell you they're experiencing. Don't tell people they're inventing reasons to feel offended. Discuss one's own thoughts and reactions without telling others, directly or passive-aggressively,that theirs are invalid.

I can tell you that I don't see the reactions you've described on this forum. But I'm not going to tell you that you're seeing them only because you're looking to be offended.

Yeah, I see that, but disagree with your interpretation - at least insofar as such comments being inherently dismissive or disingenuous (aka, trolling). We're in a bind: How can someone voice disagreement without it being seen as dismissive? Meaning, if someone earnestly feels the way you express in that quote, how are they to communicate that? Should they just be quiet and not participate? Should they assume they are in the wrong and seek to learn the proper way to see things, perhaps examine their own defensiveness, even if they don't feel like they're defensive, but assume that they are?

If you express concerns that an RPG product is harmful or off-putting or insensitive or thoughtless, and if it's my sincere belief that your expressed concerns are coming from a place of misplaced outrage because you're trying to get yourself and others riled up about something that doesn't actually matter, then, yes, absolutely, I should just be quiet and not participate. Yes, I should assume I'm wrong and look for a better way to see things. Yes, I should examine myself thoroughly.

 

[Malmuria]

Disagreement and dismissiveness seem to be somewhat of a spectrum, and a matter of interpretation. Plus, I think most of what you call "dismissive" is not dismissing the problem of actual racism, but disagreeing with an interpretation on what constitutes racism.

So I'm not sure how one can disagree without it being interpreted by some as dismissive.

I think disagreement would be presenting an argument for why a given depiction is not racist while taking the concerns and point of view of those who disagree seriously. Being dismissive is when people reference a "twitter mob," or "virtue signaling," as if those taking offense are unthinking, childlike, and/or seeking attention.

 

[Umbran]

I find it disturbing how quickly disagreeing with the majority is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive."

From the official point of view of the boards, it is not the fact of disagreement that is the issue.

It is the manner of disagreement. Being a jerk about it makes it trolling or disruptive.