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

[Snarf Zagyg]

I also wanna note:

I find it INCREDIBLY ANNOYING as a writer and a designer to have people tell me I'm "Censoring" myself. Or that I specifically -shouldn't- take any kind of cultural criticism of my work to heart and change my own work of my own volition because of the impact I want to create.

Not "Shouldn't have to" which is an ignorant statement 'cause no one "Has" to take criticism. But just outright "Shouldn't". That I should go back to previous works which I rewrote to avoid negative issues and just stick to the original, unintentionally offensive, version. Like. What the hell? No, I'm not going to do that. That sounds awful. Editing TWICE?! And to make a political statement I don't agree with? Screw that!

It has never felt like being censored or self-censorship, to me. It's felt like I've made a misstep, apologized for making a misstep, and then tried not to do it, again.

I feel like the people who are calling things like this "Censorship" are just telling on themselves and swaddling their confessions in self-righteous indignation and justification to make themselves feel better.

I loved your comment. But I want to add a little more context. The idea of self-censorship isn't just an idea- it is quite real. In First Amendment law it is referred to specifically as the "chilling effect."

It is core and foundational to the broad protections of the First Amendment. One of the most famous cases that has defined the contours of defamation law is on point - New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). That's when the Court first ruled that inadvertent false statements will always happen in robust public discourse, and therefore cannot be actionable. To allow a defamation suit because of inadvertent errors would deter people from speaking freely and engaging in protected speech, and the Court overruled the lower court because of “the chilling effect of the Alabama libel laws on First Amendment freedoms in the area of race relations.”

The basic idea behind the "chilling effect" is that we don't want to have vague or broad laws that might deter people from protected or expressive conduct. Another infamous example is US v. Stevens, where the Court voided a federal law banning depictions of animal cruelty (the, um .... "crush videos" law) because it would chill protected speech regarding hunting or documentaries exposing livestock slaughter. For that matter, cockfighting was still legal in Puerto Rico at the time, yet under this law a person could make a video of that lawful activity and then be prosecuted for it.

But again, this is about state action*- we never want the government to be able to put us in the pokey or fine us or deter us from speaking.

Which gets us to the heart of the issue. As I said before, the state should never be able to sanction** speech.*** But all people adjust their messages based on all sorts of factors. For example, maybe you curse a lot normally around your friends. But when you are talking to your boss, you "self-censor" because of the "chilling effect" of not wanting your boss to think you're a degenerate moron like Snarf. In fact, the reason that speech can be so powerful is because there are those who don't self-censor, who are fine with provoking, offending, or shocking - and they then deal with the social consequences for doing so, either good or bad. I keep hammering this point home, but I just don't know why people don't get it (you seem to, great post).

Asking for people not to respond to your speech in a negative manner? That's NOT free speech. Say what you want- but people are perfectly able to react as they want to as well. That's life. If you walk into a cocktail party and start telling everyone that the Austrian Painter had "some good ideas" then you shouldn't be surprised when you aren't invited again.



*Now, I know some of you might say, "Wait. Isn't a defamation action between two private parties? The actual answer is, not always. But yes, in modern times it is almost always by one private party against another. So why is there any First Amendment protection? Because you are using state action for it (defamation is a law, enforced by a court).

**ARGHHH! Contranyms.... well, I mean the bad sanction, not the meaning of "allow."

***Never doesn't actually mean never.

 

[Steampunkette]

Brendan? Maybe you should just take your own advice on this one... 'cause you're not changing any minds, here. It may be more "Civil" than the flame wars you warned of back in 2016...


You're not really making much headway by arguing around people's points rather than addressing them, directly.

Like with my post about Censorship where you clipped a single sentence and tried to stand on a soapbox, and then I quoted you to reiterate the point the other several paragraphs were making... which you didn't address and don't appear to have any intention of addressing.

You talk about cherry picking in that video, and evading facts and stuff. But don't you do that when you ignore the fact that people following guidelines for commissioned work aren't being censored by following the guidelines for those projects?

 

[Gradine]

So, when folks are upset that "people" can't create sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/bigoted content because they will be attacked for their "differences in opinion", it's always important to recognize that nine times out of ten when they say "differences in opinion" they mean bigotry and when they say "people" they're talking about themselves.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I also wanna note:

I find it INCREDIBLY ANNOYING as a writer and a designer to have people tell me I'm "Censoring" myself. Or that I specifically -shouldn't- take any kind of cultural criticism of my work to heart and change my own work of my own volition because of the impact I want to create.

I am not saying you are. You may well be perfectly happy working under the guidelines you are given and the guidelines could well be very good ones. I am not saying project managers are evil. Every project ought to have a vision and when you are bringing in a bunch of different creatives, someone needs to be a bit of a director to give things cohesion. And if you genuinely believe in the cultural criticism you are getting, more power to you. My point is just that a lot of writers feel things are being taken off the table over optics rather than them actually being a problem and some people want more creative vision from companies making RPGs, even big ones like wizards.

Not "Shouldn't have to" which is an ignorant statement 'cause no one "Has" to take criticism. But just outright "Shouldn't". That I should go back to previous works which I rewrote to avoid negative issues and just stick to the original, unintentionally offensive, version. Like. What the hell? No, I'm not going to do that. That sounds awful. Editing TWICE?! And to make a political statement I don't agree with? Screw that!

You have to make this judgement for yourself. Every artist exercises some amount of restraint when it comes to this. Most artists aren't in the business of trying to make people offended (except maybe shock artists). But I think the issue I am pointing to is the broader gaming culture has just become much less forgiving about what the artistic intention may have been. It becomes catering to the least common denominator of who takes offense.

Also you said something in your other post that is worthy of response. You mentioned this is a business and while that is true I don't personally see what I am engaged in as being a business first, I see it as art first. And art often risks being misunderstood.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Asking for people not to respond to your speech in a negative manner? That's NOT free speech. Say what you want- but people are perfectly able to react as they want to as well. That's life. If you walk into a cocktail party and start telling everyone that the Austrian Painter had "some good ideas" then you shouldn't be surprised when you aren't invited again.

To be abundantly clear: this is not what I am saying (and not suggesting you are saying that is what I am saying). What I am saying is we have to push back against overreactions to speech, and we have to push back on mobbing behavior and social pressure and shaming to get people to conform to a set of conclusions about art that they might not agree with. I am saying we can tone down the hyperbole and look at what people are actually saying (and someone disagreeing with you that a given book is doing X versus Y doesn't make that person a monster or someone who needs to be cast out of polite society)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Brendan? Maybe you should just take your own advice on this one... 'cause you're not changing any minds, here. It may be more "Civil" than the flame wars you warned of back in 2016...

I have to be honest here, it is fair if you want to review things I have said in the past, but I am not coming through things posters I disagree with here have said elsewhere or in the past to get a 'gotcha'. And I find this tactic a little discomforting. Needless to say that was my thought on a topic in one moment in time, almost ten years ago.

And that is how I felt about the state of things in 2016. I think the hobby was in a much better state in 2016 than it is today in respect to these things. Also at that time I didn't understand how bad things were getting, and hadn't really experienced the personal brunt of this stuff. Once that happens to you, it does change your perspective a lot. But am not trying to engage in a flame war. That said, I probably could spend my time more wisely and work on writing rather than make the same points again and again in a thread like this

I will say, the bit of advice about not looking stuff up as I debate people, is something I take to heart. The point about cherry picking was about how people google wikipedia and look up quick facts they don't really understand to 'own' the opposition

You're not really making much headway by arguing around people's points rather than addressing them, directly.

I am taking as many points as I can, and I am focusing on on the ones I think matter most (but there are litanies of points here so I am just not going to be able to cover everything). And there are points that are just not worth getting into as well because they are detours

Like with my post about Censorship where you clipped a single sentence and tried to stand on a soapbox, and then I quoted you to reiterate the point the other several paragraphs were making... which you didn't address and don't appear to have any intention of addressing.

I am happy to go back and review the post if you link it. I wasn't trying to cherry pick though. I was being focused about what I respond to in peoples post. But if I got the post wrong I can review it and see if I have more thoughts.

You talk about cherry picking in that video, and evading facts and stuff. But don't you do that when you ignore the fact that people following guidelines for commissioned work aren't being censored by following the guidelines for those projects?

I don't feel like I am cherry picking. But there are a lot of posts so I may be missing things

I just responded to this point. The reason I didn't weigh in on that right away is it is a big topic, and there is a lot to carefully consider. I have other thoughts on its as well so I may post more on it

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

To be abundantly clear: this is not what I am saying (and not suggesting you are saying that is what I am saying). What I am saying is we have to push back against overreactions to speech, and we have to push back on mobbing behavior and social pressure and shaming to get people to conform to a set of conclusions about art that they might not agree with. I am saying we can tone down the hyperbole and look at what people are actually saying (and someone disagreeing with you that a given book is doing X versus Y doesn't make that person a monster or someone who needs to be cast out of polite society)

As I said before, I am concerned about the attacks on the principles of free speech that I hold dear.

But I don't want to delve further into this, so I will offer you two thoughts-

1. When it's private parties, it's not a "free speech" issue. It's something else. Because you can restrain the government from interfering with speech, but you can't have the government interfering with our speech, even if the supposed rationale is to promote speech between private parties. In other words- just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean you make every problem a nail. Think about the actual issues and try defining the problem differently.

2. This is a two-parter. First, I don't think anyone seriously believes that there is less speech, less of a variety of speech, or less ability for everyone to have their speech out there (whether or not people listen). So the actual speech isn't the issue, is it? We are in the best of times when it comes to speech. So maybe the issues underlying mobbing, shaming, or "consequences" of speech might lie elsewhere....

 

[Steampunkette]

I loved your comment. But I want to add a little more context. The idea of self-censorship isn't just an idea- it is quite real. In First Amendment law it is referred to specifically as the "chilling effect."

It is core and foundational to the broad protections of the First Amendment. One of the most famous cases that has defined the contours of defamation law is on point - New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). That's when the Court first ruled that inadvertent false statement will always happen in robust public discourse, and therefore cannot be actionable. To allow a defamation suit because of inadvertent errors would create deter people from speaking freely and engaging in protected speech, and the Court overruled the lower court because of “the chilling effect of the Alabama libel laws on First Amendment freedoms in the area of race relations.”

The basic idea behind the "chilling effect" is that we don't want to have vague or broad laws that might deter people from protected or expressive conduct. Another infamous example is US v. Stevens, where the Court voided a federal law banning depictions of animal cruelty (the, um .... "crush videos" law) because it would chill protected speech regarding hunting or documentaries exposing livestock slaughter. For that matter, cockfighting was still legal in Puerto Rico at the time, yet under this law a person could make a video of that lawful activity and then be prosecuted for it.

But again, this is about state action*- we never want the government to be able to put us in the pokey or fine us or deter us from speaking.

Which gets us to the heart of the issue. As I said before, the state should never be able to sanction** speech.*** But all people adjust their messages based on all sorts of factors. For example, maybe you curse a lot normally around your friends. But when you are talking to you boss, you "self-censor" because of the "chilling effect" of not wanting your boss to think you're a degenerate moron like Snarf. In fact, the reason that speech can be so powerful is because there are those who don't self-censor, who are fine with provoking, offending, or shocking - and they then deal with the social consequences for doing so, either good or bad. I keep hammering this point home, but I just don't know why people don't get it (you seem to, great post).

Asking for people not to respond to your speech in a negative manner? That's NOT free speech. Say what you want- but people are perfectly able to react as they want to as well. That's life. If you walk into a cocktail party and start telling everyone that the Austrian Painter had "some good ideas" then you shouldn't be surprised when you aren't invited again.



*Now, I know some of you might say, "Wait. Isn't a defamation action between two private parties? The actual answer is, not always. But yes, in modern times it is almost always by one private party against another. So why is there any First Amendment protection? Because you are using state action for it (defamation is a law, enforced by a court).

**ARGHHH! Contranyms.... well, I mean the bad sanction, not the meaning of "allow."

***Never doesn't actually mean never.

While I'm heartily opposed to the chilling effects in response to laws and political action by groups in power, I disagree that there's a "Chilling Effect" to interpersonal relationships and choices of speech.

You are correct that I don't curse as much as I used to. And tried really hard not to curse in front of children. But it wasn't from the "Chilling Effect" of what is or isn't socially acceptable. It was about respect for their parents who asked me not to curse in front of their kids.

For me it has always been about respect and care for others, not about fear of social backlash or legal threats. And because it was about respect and care it wasn't "Self Censorship" it was just courtesy. Just being polite and kind 'cause it's nice to be polite and kind.

And I feel like it's that way for most people.

You are kind and gentle and sensitive with the people you care about and respect. And you establish a kind of baseline respect and care for everyone outside of that circle.

And then you have the bucket of people who you gave that baseline respect to and they failed to maintain it and now they don't get that baseline respect and care until they do something to correct their behavior.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's not that way for most people. But if it isn't? Then I pity most people.

 

[Bedrockgames]

2. This is a two-parter. First, I don't think anyone seriously believes that there is less speech, less of a variety of speech, or less ability for everyone to have their speech out there (whether or not people listen). So the actual speech isn't the issue, is it? We are in the best of times when it comes to speech. So maybe the issues underlying mobbing, shaming, or "consequences" of speech might lie elsewhere....

This strikes me as a bit of sophistry. Yes there is more speech by virtue of the internet. But there is also so much more pressure on people to conform their speech and to be held to account over every little statement they have made. So I think there is a bit of a paradox on this front in that we obviously have greater freedom of speech in many respects, yet are also less free in many other ways. And I think a lot of the angst on this topic stems from the changes we are living through as communication technology has advanced int eh past two decades. And issues of mobbing, shaming and consequences, especially if people are losing work, losing connections to family and friends, do relate to speech because those are the levers being used to get people to conform their speech. I am not saying it is a first amendment violation but we have created a culture online that I think isn't healthy for free expression

 

[MGibster]

We have lots of dark and edgy and grimdark settings and games. I suspect we have more of them now than ever.

I think the tide might be turning on some of those. Warhammer 40k, the setting that inspired grimdark, is walking back on a lot of what made their setting grimdark to begin with. They're doing this because they want their IP to be more family friendly and have a broader appeal of course. On the other hand we have the newly released Trench Crusade mini war game and they're leaning heavily into the grimdark aesthetic complete with Christians, Muslims, and devil worshipers.