D&D General Why a PETITION: Stop Hasbro's hurtful content is a Bad Idea

[Oofta]

But that's the point: if you don't accept the premise of a thread and it's basically stifling discussion, that's needed. If we've already had the debate on doing something, do we need to debate it all over again?



I mean, not that I know of?



There are literally people in that thread who have basically said they disagree with different parts. The point is that if you disagree with the whole thing, then you're not really engaging with the thread but questioning its existence in the first place. If I were coming over here and asking "Why do we have this thread, what's the point?", it'd be similar. What happens is there is no discussion because people shut it down in favor of something that the topic wasn't asking.

But on this thread you can say "I disagree completely wit the OP" and why.

The other thread is borderline abuse of + threads because it's making a statement that many people disagree with. To me a + thread is asking people to build on an idea or give advice, that thread is doing neither.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, not that I know of?

LOL I didn't finish that thought.

It was supposed to be, "Have you seen the threads around here?" Off topic is par for the course unless it gets too far off topic for too long a period of time.

 

[Raiztt]

I genuinely don't understand the point of that thread. The document that the original poster created is an interesting and well researched analysis of racist tropes in an old module, but beyond that, I'm lefting thinking "and/so?".

 

[Justice and Rule]

No, it's not meant to discount all actions. It's intended to point out that action has already been taken, and that action is adequate and further action would, imo, have detrimental impacts.

And you've not really shown any sort of "detrimental impact" besides speculate that maybe there could be further outrage or that Hasbro would throw a tantrum and toss their ball away.

If it were a teaching tool he would be looking to have it published in academic journals, not on a gaming product site.

You can have teaching tools that are not just published on academic journals, especially when it comes to your own product.

I was. Because I could not disagree with the premise.

Look at my first post there, last I looked it had about 40 likes. I've never seen a post get anywhere near 40 likes (I'm sure others have, but I just haven't noticed them). For this forum, that's a sh!t-ton. Look at all the participation in this thread. If it hasn't already, it looks like it will soon surpass the number of posts in the original thread. It's the same topic, why is this thread so much more active then? Because the labelling of the other post as a + thread has simple shut down discussion of the topic and driven it here.

You're right, you disagreed with the premise and even misstated what they were saying by saying they were trying to sweep the past under the rug, which is really funny given that most of your responses to their points were to not give it any more exposure. And then you also stated they were going to rewrite history, which they also said they weren't. So I mean, maybe people just get a lot of likes from saying what people want to hear even if it's not exactly accurate.

I mean, I dunno, I try not to judge myself on how many likes I get. Feels weird.

Notice how @Dungeonosophy has not participated in this thread? Why is that? It speaks volumes to me about his intentions with his petition. But I would love to know what his real intentions are, but only he can clarify that and speak for himself. Which he so far has chosen not to do.

Maybe they feel like a person who actively got 40+ likes while saying they were trying to do things they weren't wasn't a good use of their time? Honestly, I think it says a lot more that you felt the need to create an entirely separate thread to talk about it. I've never so incensed about leaving a thread that I had to create a whole new one to oppose it.

But on this thread you can say "I disagree completely wit the OP" and why.

The other thread is borderline abuse of + threads because it's making a statement that many people disagree with. To me a + thread is asking people to build on an idea or give advice, that thread is doing neither.

I don't believe I've actually said that this thread shouldn't exist, so that's wrong.

But also having this fight in that thread would make it so that the original topic of that thread never gets discussed. The whole point of this thread is to discuss whether or not that thread should exist, which I'm engaging with. I don't think the original post wanted such a weird, tautological discussion as to whether the thread they should started should exist at all, but rather wanted to discuss a different topic that people posted saying "I don't think we should discuss this topic!"

I genuinely don't understand the point of that thread. The document that the original poster created is an interesting and well researched analysis of racist tropes in an old module, but beyond that, I'm lefting thinking "and/so?".

I think the idea is to actively confront these old tropes and use Hasbro to educate people on racism with their old product instead of just selling it with a boilerplate warning.

 

[Raiztt]

I think the idea is to actively confront these old tropes and use Hasbro to educate people on racism with their old product instead of just selling it with a boilerplate warning.

I don't think Hasbro has that sort of obligation. We, the community, can actively confront and analyze the racist tropes from that module and in doing so are educating people. Hasbro's participation isn't necesary. But, furthermore, to illustrate a point:

I don't eat meat because I think it's unethical. But I don't tell other people they can't eat meat or that they have to behave in a certain way.

I suppose this is why I'm not participating in the other discussion because: while I don't disagree with the (fact) that the module is (obviously) racist, I do disagree that Hasbro needs to do anything about it. In fact, I don't think they even need to include the existent disclaimer so for me they've already gone above and beyond.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I don't think Hasbro has that sort of obligation. We, the community, can actively confront and analyze the racist tropes from that module and in doing so are educating people. Hasbro's participation isn't necesary. But, furthermore, to illustrate a point:

I don't eat meat because I think it's unethical. But I don't tell other people they can't eat meat or that they have to behave in a certain way.

I suppose this is why I'm not participating in the other discussion because: while I don't disagree with the (fact) that the module is (obviously) racist, I do disagree that Hasbro needs to do anything about it. In fact, I don't think they even need to include the existent disclaimer so for me they've already gone above and beyond.

It's not an obligation, but that's the point of a petition: to tell them people want this. If we only did what we were obligated to do, we'd be a pretty sad society.

 

[Raiztt]

It's not an obligation, but that's the point of a petition: to tell them people want this. If we only did what we were obligated to do, we'd be a pretty sad society.

Well, first of all, the entire concept of 'obligation' or something not being one is that you can't be blamed for not doing it. If something isn't obligatory it's supererogatory. Meaning WotC doing nothing is neutral, but them making the requested change would be "good".

Second of all: Do "people want this", though?

How many people have signed the petition out of the total number of active D&D players? I would be willing to bet that the super vast majority of D&D players aren't even aware that this module exists. It seems to me - and maybe I'm wrong - that the original OP is sort of crusading. Which is fine - it's well within his right to do so - I just don't think it should be couched as if there was a gigantic ground swell of people clamoring for this change when in reality it's probably a handful of people on one specific forum.

It very well may be that the vast majority of people don't care one way or the other.

EDIT: as of right now, 13 people have signed the petition (2/22/2023, 4:27pm CST)

 

[Justice and Rule]

Do "people want this", though?

How many people have signed the petition out of the total number of active D&D players? I would be willing to bet that the super vast majority of D&D players aren't even aware that this module exists. It seems to me - and maybe I'm wrong - that the original OP is sort of crusading. Which is fine - it's well within his right to do so - I just don't think it should be couched as if there was a gigantic ground swell of people clamoring for this change when in reality it's probably a handful of people on one specific forum.

It very well may be that the vast majority of people don't care one way or the other.

EDIT: as of right now, 13 people have signed the petition (2/22/2023, 4:27pm CST)

Or maybe most people are just unaware. We're just one forum and it's not like this is reddit or something. I'd wager most people don't know that Orcs of Thar even exists. As a player of nearly 30 years, I hadn't heard of it until they brought it up.

 

[Raiztt]

Or maybe most people are just unaware. We're just one forum and it's not like this is reddit or something. I'd wager most people don't know that Orcs of Thar even exists. As a player of nearly 30 years, I hadn't heard of it until they brought it up.

This just seems to be real Karen behavior. This is ultimately a wildly, wildly trivial matter that impacts virtually no one.

It's interesting to document as a relic of the past and racist tropes in media, but this particular piece of media is affecting no one anymore.

We should ask Drive Thru RPG or WotC how many copies have actually sold since this was introduced to their online platform.

The time for this conversation was about 40 years ago.

 

[Justice and Rule]

This just seems to be real Karen behavior. This is ultimately a wildly, wildly trivial matter that impacts virtually no one.

I mean, you could doubly say that about this thread, created to complain about the other thread and the moderating going on there, right?

It's interesting to document as a relic of the past and racist tropes in media, but this particular piece of media is affecting no one anymore.

The time for this conversation was about 40 years ago.

Well, talking about it 5 years before it was released would definitely have helped fix things, Marty, but ultimately issues of race and culture often come up long after they have passed because those conversations would have not have been heard then. We have them now because we can have them now. Also helps to not have to have a DeLorean to do so.