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]

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

But they are asking to do so. Yes, they are incapable of it, thankfully. I'm expressing the opinion that asking to do so, and expecting it to be carried out, is wrong.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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?

The OP was quite literally asking for thought policing. I find your rebuttal to be nonsensical frankly.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The OP was quite literally asking for thought policing. I find your rebuttal to be nonsensical frankly.

You literally can't describe how it was. You're just declaring it. What is thought policing? The disclaimer?

 

[Raiztt]

The OP was quite literally asking for thought policing. I find your rebuttal to be nonsensical frankly.

When it comes to having a discussion, there has to be some shared ground for the discussion to even happen on. I think as far as speech, morality, obligation, and "is-to-ought" is concerned there are people here who just don't have a shared premise and therefor nothing is ever going to be resolved.

 

[Justice and Rule]

When it comes to having a discussion, there has to be some shared ground for the discussion to even happen on. I think as far as speech, morality, obligation, and "is-to-ought" is concerned there are people here who just don't have a shared premise and therefor nothing is ever going to be resolved.

This is true, though I think we're a bit more far afield than normal when we have one side proclaiming that the addition/improvement of disclaimers is thought-policing.

 

[Irlo]

Publishers’ disclaimers, critical commentary, and notes on historical context do not in any way impose an opinion on anyone. I don’t get it. But I’ll drop it.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

When it comes to having a discussion, there has to be some shared ground for the discussion to even happen on. I think as far as speech, morality, obligation, and "is-to-ought" is concerned there are people here who just don't have a shared premise and therefor nothing is ever going to be resolved.

Agreed. And pretty much my point. The OP is not looking for a discussion. A discussion is what happens when you take the steps that I described in my earlier post.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Publishers’ disclaimers, critical commentary, and notes on historical context do not in any way impose an opinion on anyone. I don’t get it. But I’ll drop it.

The OP is asking for a bit more than that. "Please attach my personal views to this piece of work." is what the OP is asking for, and is not what your are describing.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You literally can't describe how it was. You're just declaring it. What is thought policing? The disclaimer?

Come on...

'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.'

 

[Irlo]

Deleted. I did say I was going to drop the subject, so I think I had best do that.