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

[Oofta]

"Has anyone called the petition itself a call for censorship? Because this keeps coming up and I simply haven't seen it."











These, to me, look like people calling the petition / the actions it will lead to censorship, and there were a few others I haven't quoted that felt like they were calling actions like this or similar to it censorship.

There may be more in the other thread.

I have quoted you in this post as well. Do you think the petition isn't censorship now, or am I misinterpreting you?

I didn't say that the petition asks for WOTC to pull the publication. A poster on the other thread did. Apparently you didn't even read the post I wrote.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I think for purposes of this discussion private actions to get new sales of an RPG book universally suppressed by its publisher who holds the copyright (like the petition thread title sounds like it is going for as opposed to what the actual petition is asking for) is much more in effect and harms like government censorship (which can take the form of prohibiting the sale of a book) than like moderating posting on a single forum.

In the original 2021 thread there was a lot of talk of trying to get the book yanked from sale because of its content. I think it is appropriate to call such advocacy attempts to censor the book.

On some level I agree, but it's only on a technical level. We're kinda crossing wires - and maybe cultures - a bit here.

I have generally seen significantly more concern over the actions of governments and generally significantly more powerful private interests when it comes to censorship than an action like this; it wouldn't register. Ireland also has quite strong libel rules, which most wouldn't comment nor care about.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I didn't say that the petition asks for WOTC to pull the publication. A poster on the other thread did. Apparently you didn't even read the post I wrote.

This post?

Specific objections to trying to cleanse all old materials is exactly the issue. I. And others specifically object to.

First, it's just not going to happen. This specific publication is just one obscure example out of hundreds (thousands?) of things published over the past half century.

Second, do you really think there's a reason to stop here? Evil elves in blackface where men are subjugated by overly well endowed dominatrix women is just peachy? Or even the description of half orcs in the 5E PHB?

Third, it's simply never going to happen. If this petition gained steam the only result would be to shut down sales of all older materials. There's simply no business case for it.

Even implementing the suggestions for just this one publication likely would not have a positive return on investment.

EDIT: I brought up Huckleberry Finn being banned because of why it's being banned. It's being banned not because of Tom's relationship with Jim which is quite positive for the time. It's banned because it uses the "n" word to describe Jim at a time when that is simply the term that would have been used. I object to censorship based on modern sensibilities, especially when looking at the entirety of the publication and the context in which it was published. This book was breaking ground at the time it was published. It could have been better, but should be considered in light of the gaming culture at the time. Even if that reflects some negative things.

So yes people have real, specific, objections that you are choosing to ignore.

The points highlighted certainly suggests to me that at the very least you think others HAVE called this censorship, and on some level you think this approaches censorship. I apologise if I mispainted you as calling it for censorship - which is why I was asking if you thought it so - and I should have used a longer quote. But I don't think I'm misrepresenting you here, and I think I've proven others are calling this censorship.

I mean, you have said it yourself. Someone on the other thread called this petition a way to pull the publication.

 

[Inukai]

I don't think it takes away from the point I was making. There's a lot of nuance, understanding and ability to have a genuine conversation for this topic. Calling this censorship, even if technically correct, is harmful to the discussion - because the connotations and cultural understanding of censorship are different than the technical meaning of the world.

If it can't be called censorship, then what do you call it that will meet both cultural understanding and technical meaning?

 

[ReshiIRE]

If it can't be called censorship, then what do you call it that will meet both cultural understanding and technical meaning?

A petition? A demand for the book to be changed to include a conversation on it's cultural affect? I'm not sure there's a particularly concise word for what I'd call it?

 

[Inukai]

A petition? A demand for the book to be changed to include a conversation on it's cultural affect? I'm not sure there's a particularly concise word for what I'd call it?

And I think that's why folks are calling it censorship - because there is no other concise word.

 

[Oofta]

This post?

The points highlighted certainly suggests to me that at the very least you think others HAVE called this censorship, and on some level you think this approaches censorship. I apologise if I mispainted you as calling it for censorship - which is why I was asking if you thought it so - and I should have used a longer quote. But I don't think I'm misrepresenting you here, and I think I've proven others are calling this censorship.

I mean, you have said it yourself. Someone on the other thread called this petition a way to pull the publication.

I never said the petition called for ending availability or censorship.

Cleanse may not have been the the best term, but apologizing, giving all money ever earned to charity, hiring consultants, make amends by publishing additional materials, etc. Is IMHO trying to cleanse (aka clean up) what is perceived as objectionable materials.

WOTC will never do that. If this became a big issue they would just pull the publication, whether that's a stated or intended goal of the petition or not.

Stop accusing me of something I never said.

 

[Justice and Rule]

And I think that's why folks are calling it censorship - because there is no other concise word.

I suppose, which makes the issue difficult to talk about because people default to quicker words rather than something with nuance. It doesn't help that people are really having the wrong conversation about this whole thing anyways.

I never said the petition called for ending availability or censorship.

Cleanse may not have been the the best term, but apologizing, giving all money ever earned to charity, hiring consultants, make amends by publishing additional materials, etc. Is IMHO trying to cleanse (aka clean up) what is perceived as objectionable materials.

WOTC will never do that. If this became a big issue they would just pull the publication, whether that's a stated or intended goal of the petition or not.

Stop accusing me of something I never said.

What do you think you mean when you talk about "cleanse all old material"?

 

[Inukai]

I suppose, which makes the issue difficult to talk about because people default to quicker words rather than something with nuance. It doesn't help that people are really having the wrong conversation about this whole thing anyways.



What do you think you mean when you talk about "cleanse all old material"?

Perhaps he was trying to be more nuanced instead of defaulting to a quicker word? I'm being facetious, I know, but everyone is hung up on defining "censorship" and what it means in this instance. The only way people can move forward is if everyone agrees on a term, whatever that may be.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

This post?

The points highlighted certainly suggests to me that at the very least you think others HAVE called this censorship, and on some level you think this approaches censorship. I apologise if I mispainted you as calling it for censorship - which is why I was asking if you thought it so - and I should have used a longer quote. But I don't think I'm misrepresenting you here, and I think I've proven others are calling this censorship.

I mean, you have said it yourself. Someone on the other thread called this petition a way to pull the publication.

Question to you about your definitions of censorship.

[This is not related to the topic of GAZ10, it is not implying any one position in that debate]

Let's say the League of Outraged Bowlers represented 10% of the bowlers in a given area. The LoOB absolutely hates turquoise bowling balls. They petition bowling alleys nationwide to not allow turquoise balls. Those bowling alleys realize they don't have many turquoise ball using guests to anger and want to keep the LoOB happy so they agree to the petition.

We're turquoise ball fans censored? If so what % of the blame goes toward the LoOB for the censoring?

I realize the above example does not fit the technical definition of censor however I do feel it fits the description as it's being used at ENworld. Im not sure if there is a better technical word to use to describe the outcome as it pertains to those affected by the change.