D&D General Just sweeping dirty dishes under the rug: D&D, Sexism, and the '70s

[GrimCo]

It's worth noting that "public spaces for this hobby" includes social media spaces like Twitter and Bluesky.

I would argue that social media spaces aren't public places. They are private places open to public. There is difference in those two. Rules are different. On social media, owners are the one who sets what is ok and what isn't. In public spaces, laws and public regulations dictate what is ok and isn't.

 

[Clint_L]

I would argue that social media spaces aren't public places. They are private places open to public. There is difference in those two. Rules are different. On social media, owners are the one who sets what is ok and what isn't. In public spaces, laws and public regulations dictate what is ok and isn't.

Depends on the social media and the jurisdiction. Canada, where I live, has different laws about both social media and free speech than does the US, for example.

 

[PHATsakk43]

I think the issue is actually two-fold.

First, there is the question of "original sin" in the game itself. It is a valid thing to discuss and to discuss with some level of relativism for the timeframe as well as individuals involved. I'm not saying that we should just give the ol' "boys will be boys" thing to it but placing statements and things within published work in some level of context. From my reading of stuff, especially regarding Gary specifically, he expressed some poor opinions of women and whether he realized it or not, incorporated a lot of racist or at the least racist-adjacent tropes into the game. Again, this was also a time before the term "intersectionality" existed, so I'll give him and some of his colleagues some level of benefit of the doubt. After all, from what we can also find out about, at least in Gary's case, was that he was a complicated individual who doesn't appear to have been motivated purely by malice, but more indifference or arrogance. Again, not justifying the negatives, just putting them in some level of perspective.

Second, and this is the really problematic part of this IMHO, are those who are malicious in their intent. These are the folks that deride everything as "woke" and become vehement that somehow anyone who acknowledges past error is destroying a legacy or something. Mr. Musk seems to have willingly jumped into this cesspit recently for instance, which is troubling given the megaphone of a social media platform he controls and wields as a cudgel. Making this group even more troubling is that not only do they seem to revere this stuff, but actually instead of it being simply included without circumspect or anything seem to want the game to be one of racist and sexist tropes where they can play out their own racist and misogynistic fantasies. This latter group definitely seems to be much more active in online spaces, but I have encountered them "in the wild" so to speak.

It is this latter group that worries me.

 

[Gradine]

I would argue that social media spaces aren't public places. They are private places open to public. There is difference in those two. Rules are different. On social media, owners are the one who sets what is ok and what isn't. In public spaces, laws and public regulations dictate what is ok and isn't.

Social pressure can and does exist in both. And we can exert that social pressure to make it clear how fully unacceptable sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are. We have, I would argue, a moral imperative* to do so.


*Edit: After posting, I realize that there is a difference here. Folks who are not traditionally marginalized have a moral imperative to do so. Those who are marginalized and targeted by such bigotry are forced to do so as a matter of survival.

 

[billd91]

I would argue that social media spaces aren't public places. They are private places open to public. There is difference in those two. Rules are different. On social media, owners are the one who sets what is ok and what isn't. In public spaces, laws and public regulations dictate what is ok and isn't.

Even in a private forum, particularly one publicly accessible, there is some overlap. Musk may have deluded himself into thinking it's OK to retweet anti-Semitic conspiracy theories because he's "a free speech absolutist" (while banning cis- anything), tweeting a direct threat would still almost certainly be actionable by law enforcement.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Even in a private forum, particularly one publicly accessible, there is some overlap. Musk may have deluded himself into thinking it's OK to retweet anti-Semitic conspiracy theories because he's "a free speech absolutist" (while banning cis- anything), tweeting a direct threat would still almost certainly be actionable by law enforcement.

Very briefly-

Different countries have different laws and regulations, something that should be remembered given social media goes across borders.

In the United States, we have protection for free speech under the First Amendment. But the protection is against the government (state action). When people discuss "free speech," they often conflate the ideals of "free speech" or "robust discourse" with what the First Amendment actually does. Other people, companies, your dog and yo momma? It doesn't apply to them.

However, there are other laws that impact how people can treat speech- but they are dependent on context. They aren't the First Amendment.

"Public forums" and "limited forums" and "non public forums"* have very specific meanings, and it's best not to use those terms when discussing the giant dumpster full of bards that is on fire that used to be called twitter.

*There's also the "not a forum, forum."

 

[GrimCo]

Social pressure can and does exist in both. And we can exert that social pressure to make it clear how fully unacceptable sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are. We have, I would argue, a moral imperative* to do so.

If you feel you have moral imperative to call it out, you do you. I applaud you for activism. I'm to cynical for that. My idealism died long time ago.

*Edit: After posting, I realize that there is a difference here. Folks who are not traditionally marginalized have a moral imperative to do so. Those who are marginalized and targeted by such bigotry are forced to do so as a matter of survival.

Even in a private forum, particularly one publicly accessible, there is some overlap. Musk may have deluded himself into thinking it's OK to retweet anti-Semitic conspiracy theories because he's "a free speech absolutist" (while banning cis- anything), tweeting a direct threat would still almost certainly be actionable by law enforcement.

Yes. While laws of the land apply to what's said in online spaces, those spaces also have Terms of service and Rules of conduct. You can say something that is totally within legal bounds and still be banned. You can't be banned if you say something on public square ( so long as it's within legal limits).

 

[PHATsakk43]

the giant dumpster full of bards that is on fire

I'm not sure I understand, wouldn't a dumpster filled with burning bards be a good thing in Snarfworld?

Would you prefer your bards to be extinguished and free to escape?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not sure I understand, wouldn't a dumpster filled with burning bards be a good thing in Snarfworld?

Would you prefer your bards to be extinguished and free to escape?

Well, in the analogy the burning dumpster is the social media platform formerly known as twitter, and the bards are the miscreants that continue to populate it.

That said, as much as I would enjoy watching Bards burn*, I prefer to kill them knowing that I won't have to hear them caterwauling. Sure, their death is good. But I'm afraid they'd turn it somehow into being about them, because that's what they do. Probably end up doing some kind of choreographed version of Venus** while they burn.


*My antipathy of bards is such that I wouldn't urinate on them if they were burning.

**And as they are Bards, you know they aren't doing Shocking Blue. Nope, they go straight to Banarama.

 

[Azzy]

If you feel you have moral imperative to call it out, you do you. I applaud you for activism. I'm to cynical for that. My idealism died long time ago.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”