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

[Justice and Rule]

And neither has the petition shown any sort of detrimental impact. It's all based on speculation of harm that might be occurring. Given we have some idea of the scale of the harm (given sales numbers of the item and the fact that few of us die-hards had ever heard of the product).

The petition outlines the unique badness of the piece and how it could be used as a teachable tool. It's not just about the detriment, but the opportunity. But as I said in the other thread, who cares about how many people it reaches when Wizards is making money on it? Just because they make only thousands of dollars on it instead of millions doesn't really negate that they are making money on a racist product.

Sure. And now you get to show why WotC, or the community, should care. Dungeonosophy and you have failed to show us why we should care.

I mean, I disagree, but I think a lot of people just like to prejudge things, like your initial response did.

No, I didn't.

You did, though:

Personally I find attempts to revise and hide the past distasteful. Second, I think spending any time re-writing a legacy product that is sub-par in the first place is a waste of limited resources.

Neither of those is true.

Created because the moderators suggested that someone do so. Because as has been shown repeatedly this discussion was not welcome or allowed in that thread.

Well yeah, your discussion was basically to say that we shouldn't be having the discussion to begin with. That kind of stifles anything from moving past the first point to anything else.

Sounds to me like you are trying to suppress open discussion by trying to insult me. You're going to have to try harder.

How would I even do that as a regular user?

Did we not a short time ago have a conversation about censorship and its perils? Sad face.

Are we equating board moderation with censorship now?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Are we equating board moderation with censorship now?

I'm not. Creating a thread with the implicit purpose of stifling discussion about an important topic certainly flies under the banner of censorship though.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'm not. Creating a thread with the implicit purpose of stifling discussion about an important topic certainly flies under the banner of censorship though.

It's not stifling discussion to have a topic and asking people to engage with that topic. Being against the topic itself eliminates the discussion desired.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

"To avoid threadcrapping I will create a separate thread entirely devoted to posting negatively about the positive thread." is an interesting direction to go.

I would argue that a + thread devoted to opposing something is itself an "interesting direction to go".

But basically any + thread is based on the premise that there is discussion to be had, which some people want to have, and which is within the constraints of what the site allows, that the + thread is evoking a privilege to not entertain. Thus every + thread implicitly suggests people unhappy with its +ness go create it's antithesis, and depending on the tone may practically challenge them to do so. Such is the cost of +ing one's thread, with which the privilege of enforceable positivity is bought.

 

[Oofta]

It's not stifling discussion to have a topic and asking people to engage with that topic. Being against the topic itself eliminates the discussion desired.

But it's not a topic for discussion. It's "agree with me and sign my petition". It could have been a topic of discussion for + thread if it had been something along the line of "what can we do about older, problematic modules". There's no discussion to be had. No ask for a review of the petition, alternative approaches, nothing.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

It's not stifling discussion to have a topic and asking people to engage with that topic. Being against the topic itself eliminates the discussion desired.

You are literally making the case for censorship. Read again your words that I quoted. Being against the topic eliminates discussion?

 

[Justice and Rule]

But it's not a topic for discussion. It's "agree with me and sign my petition". It could have been a topic of discussion for + thread if it had been something along the line of "what can we do about older, problematic modules". There's no discussion to be had. No ask for a review of the petition, alternative approaches, nothing.

We've already had the discussion on the topic about this. It was 120 pages. I think the idea was to discuss the actual options without just reflexively opposing it, hence the idea of a plus thread. But then it immediately got flooded with people questioning why even have the topic itself, which isn't actually conducive to having any actual discussion on the topic.

You are literally making the case for censorship. Read again your words that I quoted. Being against the topic eliminates discussion?

That is literally not how censorship works. That's how curation and moderation work. I'm not sure how to explain this more clearly.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

That is literally not how censorship works. That's how curation and moderation work. I'm not sure how to explain this more clearly.

Thought policing is wrong. I'm struggling to explain to you the difference between 'curation and moderation' and censorship.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Thought policing is wrong. I'm struggling to explain to you the difference between 'curation and moderation' and censorship.

No one is thought-policing anyone. That's like someone saying "I want to discuss 4E without constantly having people call it a video game" and acting like things have turned into 1984. You'd think you'd never seen someone moderate a topic before.

Again, the thread author didn't want to have a discussion on whether or not to have the discussion at all, they just wanted a discussion on the topic. Having the thread be brigaded by a bunch of people who then want to say how much we shouldn't discuss the topic is just that: brigading. Instead of having a discussion on the topic we are having a discussion as to whether or not there should be a discussion at all, which isn't the intent of the thread. It's the intent of this thread, which is completely fine. But it's not censorship, it's not thought-policing, it's not any of that. It's just allowing a topic to be discussed without it being immediately dragged off by people who don't want to actually have a discussion about it to begin with.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Having the thread be brigaded by a bunch of people who then want to say how much we shouldn't discuss the topic is just that: brigading. Instead of having a discussion on the topic we are having a discussion as to whether or not there should be a discussion at all, which isn't the intent of the thread. It's the intent of this thread, which is completely fine. But it's not censorship, it's not thought-policing, it's not any of that. It's just allowing a topic to be discussed without it being immediately dragged off by people who don't want to actually have a discussion about it to begin with.

Yes. Agreed. Do you really think that was the intent of the original thread though? That's my point. The purpose of the original thread (with its +) was to thought police this topic.