D&D General PETITION: Acknowledge Hasbro's hurtful content (Black orcs, Asian yellow orcs, Native American red orcs)—through an Amendatory Bundle [+ thread]

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

How many people agree with you isn't a measure of whether your argument or actions are right or wrong. It's just a measure of how much people agree with you, and whether you are going to succeed or not in that action. It doesn't even say whether you're going to influence others or not.

I mean... a lot of things like this start rather small and go on to grow or not. Discussion, arguments and fighting on are what changes things, not just starting something and giving up because you don't find many people agreeing with you.

You have to consider you are right when other people present arguments that counter yours, facts that recontextualise or change things, present examples of something already being done and worked or did not, etc. The volume of people arguing against you doesn't change the quality of your argument.

I mean - have we not seen what platforms like Reddit can easily devolve into, where the amount of people who agree with you literally determines what comments nad posts get to the top? That often leads to a significant amount of misinformation, poor arguments, and incredibly incorrect things. It encourages echo chambers, where only 'right' opinions can be expressed. (Reddit isn't the worst and the actual harm of low karma is fairly low, but it does cause people to act in weird ways to heavily downvoted people, especially since Reddit no longer shows how many people agree or disagree with a post)

A traditional forum structure avoids that. That's why we're even able to have a conversation like this, right now.

Honestly, this is a specious argument. You are on the side of suffocating freedom of thought right now.

Look, this is a terrible book. It's racist and infantile. I remember picking this up from the shelf in my local game shop when it first came out and recoiling at these tropes.

The answer to something one does not like is to let your thoughts be known. Don't purchase the product. Tell your friends not to purchase it. Add your opinion to your blog. Post on your favourite forums. Add it to your social media signature. Whatever. What is most definitely not okay is trying to police the thoughts of others. Asking a publisher to editorialise their work by placing an editorial statement on it works against this basic democratic freedom.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Honestly, this is a specious argument. You are on the side of suffocating freedom of thought right now.

Wait, what free thoughts are being suffocated right now? Because this just seems like overblown hyperbole to me.

Look, this is a terrible book. It's racist and infantile. I remember picking this up from the shelf in my local game shop when it first came out and recoiling at these tropes.

The answer to something one does not like is to let your thoughts be known. Don't purchase the product. Tell your friends not to purchase it. Add your opinion to your blog. Post on your favourite forums. Add it to your social media signature. Whatever. What is most definitely not okay is trying to police the thoughts of others. Asking a publisher to editorialise their work by placing an editorial statement on it works against this basic democratic freedom.

Again, who is policing what thoughts? This is about trying to put a better disclaimer and have someone do a more in-depth examination of the product. This entire argument feels completely disconnected from the reality of the situation.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Again, who is policing what thoughts? This is about trying to put a better disclaimer and have someone do a more in-depth examination of the product. This entire argument feels completely disconnected from the reality of the situation.

The OP is. Put a disclaimer in your own space. Your thoughts, your responsibility.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The OP is. Put a disclaimer in your own space. Your thoughts, your responsibility.

The OP has the freedom to express any opinions that they wish. What they are not free to do is impose those opinions on others.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The OP is. Put a disclaimer in your own space. Your thoughts, your responsibility.

Well, Wizards already put one on, so uh

 

[Irlo]

Honestly, this is a specious argument. You are on the side of suffocating freedom of thought right now.

Look, this is a terrible book. It's racist and infantile. I remember picking this up from the shelf in my local game shop when it first came out and recoiling at these tropes.

The answer to something one does not like is to let your thoughts be known. Don't purchase the product. Tell your friends not to purchase it. Add your opinion to your blog. Post on your favourite forums. Add it to your social media signature. Whatever. What is most definitely not okay is trying to police the thoughts of others. Asking a publisher to editorialise their work by placing an editorial statement on it works against this basic democratic freedom.

There’s nothing wrong with asking a publisher or author to editorialize their work. That too is freedom of speech. And it has no adverse affect on freedom of thought.

We can ask them to publish something, to refrain from publishing something, to change what they’ve published, to publish something that I wrote.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Well, Wizards already put one on, so uh

Non sequitur.

 

[Irlo]

The OP has the freedom to express any opinions that they wish. What they are not free to do is impose those opinions on others.

Not free to do so and completely incapable of it, so not to worry.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

There’s nothing wrong with asking a publisher or author to editorialize their work. That too is freedom of speech. And it has no adverse affect on freedom of thought.

We can ask them to publish something, to refrain from publishing something, to change what they’ve published, to publish something that I wrote.

You can ask. Accepting that ask is wrong. But feel free to ask. What's better though, is to not ask in the first place. Express your thoughts in a better way.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Non sequitur.

Literally not, given that you were talking about the OP wanting to put a disclaimer on being something akin to thought-policing. If there is already a disclaimer, it's already being thought-policed, right?

I find this position to be utterly non-sensical. Are content warnings now a threat to free speech?