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

[ReshiIRE]

It might be, but I feel sometimes it's good to open these cans. Get this out there, discuss it and find a course through.

Though I should mention I am not Black, Asian or Native American. Though I feel dealing with past transphobia in books and discussing why it's bad and what we should do it with is kinda important.

 

[SteveC]

I've heard people saying "we're not about censorship," but it's my understanding that the goal is to recreate it with the problematic content removed, which is censoring it. There's a lot of gaming product out there that I don't like and am not interested in, and much of it is pretty offensive. I think both of us can think of some of those products that would violate the Eric's Grandma convention to discuss here. I don't think that any of it should be removed (except for some very extreme cases, I there are restrictions for speech under the First Amendment after all).

Since my comment has been brought up, I thought I'd just quote myself.
At this point, I am not sure what the goals of people who don't like this product are, but all of these are things that I would call censorship. Yes, I'm aware that not everyone will agree, but I'm okay with that. Here we go:

• Remove the book. As I've said, this isn't the first time this book has been discussed. Taking it out of print has definitely been discussed.
• Edit the book to remove problematic content. Also censorship. Much in the same sense as the Roald Dahl books are censorship, even though they sell thousands of times as many books mind you, but the principle is the same.
• Place an extensive thesis at the front of the book about why it's problematic. Also censorship. If I were to see a document by someone I've never heard of telling me why the book I purchased is racist, I'd be asking for a refund. Not that I'd be buying this book in the first place!

Now I made the suggestion that WotC could revise the book and put both on for sale (which isn't going to happen, since this is such an insignificant product, and Mystara doesn't seem to be even on the radar for them, let alone this book). I also suggested that WotC could open up the book (and all of Mystara for that matter) up for authors on the DMsGuild to work with. I think this is the best solution, frankly.

I get that people seem to think of censorship as something only the government can do, but I completely disagree. I also get that WotC has every right to do whatever they want with this book, I just think it would be a bad idea.

I also just wanted to reiterate that talking about the First Amendment was about the standards for speech that I support. First Amendment law has some pretty well established exceptions to free speech that I try to apply to all speech, not just government approved speech. That's a moral or ethical argument, not a legal one.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Place an extensive thesis at the front of the book about why it's problematic. Also censorship. If I were to see a document by someone I've never heard of telling me why the book I purchased is racist, I'd be asking for a refund. Not that I'd be buying this book in the first place!

How is that censorship? How can a report criticising, explaining and discussing the issues of the item censorship in any way of the word?

Especially since in this case it's a document being put not in the same book, but being compiled along the original PDF?

 

[SteveC]

How is that censorship? How can a report criticising, explaining and discussing the issues of the item censorship in any way of the word?

Especially since in this case it's a document being put not in the same book, but being compiled along the original PDF?

It's a random outside person commenting on how this product is racist and problematic. How is that designed to do anything other than sell fewer copies of the game? To stigmatize people who buy it? Since this is a problematic book, selling less of it is the only good outcome, right?

I can certainly get that not everyone is going to agree with me on this, but I don't see any reason adding that thesis will do anything more than the disclaimer, other than giving the writer some notoriety.

And just as a point of emphasis: I don't own this book and have no interest in it as a product. I simply find that it's a lot easier to disagree at this point than after it's started to happen.

 

[Mistwell]

How is that censorship? How can a report criticising, explaining and discussing the issues of the item censorship in any way of the word?

Especially since in this case it's a document being put not in the same book, but being compiled along the original PDF?

Honest question: How many people do you think would read the report? As a total or a percentage of people who purchase the product, either way.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It's a random outside person commenting on how this product is racist and problematic. How is that designed to do anything other than sell fewer copies of the game? To stigmatize people who buy it? Since this is a problematic book, selling less of it is the only good outcome, right?

It's not to stigmatize people who buy it, it's to give context and information to people who might not know why something is offensive or racist or what have you. Do people feel stigmatized by disclaimers and such?

I can certainly get that not everyone is going to agree with me on this, but I don't see any reason adding that thesis will do anything more than the disclaimer, other than giving the writer some notoriety.

I feel it might get people to examine it along with the actual writing itself.

Honest question: How many people do you think would read the report? As a total or a percentage of people who purchase the product, either way.

I mean, if it's "pay-what-you-want, proceeds go to charity"? I think you might be surprised. I know I would pitch in and check it out. I think most of the sales at that point would be because of that. So over half, maybe more?

 

[Mistwell]

It's not to stigmatize people who buy it, it's to give context and information to people who might not know why something is offensive or racist or what have you. Do people feel stigmatized by disclaimers and such?



I feel it might get people to examine it along with the actual writing itself.



I mean, if it's "pay-what-you-want, proceeds go to charity"? I think you might be surprised. I know I would pitch in and check it out. I think most of the sales at that point would be because of that. So over half, maybe more?

I didn't ask who would buy it to help out a charitable cause or to "do the right thing" I asked how many would READ it.

I think that number is very low. It sounds like homework to me. And it sounds like something I could find to read for free if that's the kind of thing I wanted to read.

 

[MGibster]

Has anyone called the petition itself a call for censorship? Because this keeps coming up and I simply haven't seen it. What has been said is that there is no way WOTC is going to do what the petition asks. In the highly unlikely event that this petition gains traction they are not going to do what the petition asks, they would simply stp selling it.

The contents of the petition are so outrageous, that no reasonable person can think WotC would acquiesce to its demands. Therefore it seems like that it was designed for two things: To embarrass WotC and to get them to pull the product.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I didn't ask who would buy it to help out a charitable cause or to "do the right thing" I asked how many would READ it.

I think that number is very low. It sounds like homework to me. And it sounds like something I could find to read for free if that's the kind of thing I wanted to read.

I mean, you could find it for free regardless if you wanted to. If you're paying money for PDFs nowadays, it's because you want to fund the creators.

As it stands, I don't mind reading papers, but I'm also interested in that sort of stuff. If you find that to be homework, that's cool. It's not for everyone.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

It really is hard because it depends on what you are talking about. So much of this is based in the exact situation that it makes broad hypotheticals harder to use. Like, if you were making a comparison to the "+" thread, that'd be easier: that's moderation, curation, etc. If you are talking about taking a piece of literature off, that's a bit different. Maybe that could be censorship, but maybe not. It depends.



I keep hearing this as the obvious default response, but the disclaimers up are only 3 years old. They had the option to nuke it then and didn't. I feel like it's wrong to simply think that is the default choice and find that this sort of thinking is more meant to stifle trying. It sort of comes off as the D&D version of "Better things aren't possible".

How about this.

We can go back and forth giving examples of how sensitive elements have been treated by businesses (you showing how they repackage them as learning opportunities at cost and me showing how they just get rid of them to avoid complaints) and whoever runs out of examples first is closer to what WotC wouldnt do.

I'll start....the D&D episode of Community.