TSR The Full & Glorious History of NuTSR

Dioltach said:

I think part of being a "man" back in the day was facing up to the challenges that life threw at you and doing the right thing by the people who depended on you. Nowadays the challenges that life throws at people - or at least the people engaging in toxic masculinity - are a lot less prominent, and they find themselves at a loss for a way to define themselves as "men". So they have to find something to distinguish themselves against, something that's "unmanly".

Click to expand...

As I said, I am loath to do any kind of 'kids these days' kind of commentary (and honestly am beginning to regret bringing this up already), because stuff being better bitd is mostly rubbish. However, and this is strictly from experience of people in my own family, I think the term manliness was 1) more a term others got to apply to you, not a mantle you wore, and 2) at least partly more framed as men rather than boys instead of men rather than girls, etc. (whatever the not-real-men are in the minds of the toxic masculinity set these days -- something about eating soy and liking to be cuckolded or whatever bizarre thing it is this week).

Sacrosanct said:

I have to admit that when I hear things like this, my red flags come up, because it feels like we're romanticising the past through rose-colored glasses. Sure, we have anecdotal stories, but when you look at how society portrayed as "manly" during those times, it was not good. Very cringeworthy by today's standard.

Masculinity back then wasn't all just "suck it up and do what's right." There was a lot of misogyny around that, repressed expression of emotion, and a lot of other factors that enforced toxic masculinity. Just go look at ads or magazines or shows from those eras. It was also a time where "a man is king of his castle, and if he beats his wife or kids, that's his business." Look at laws we had in place to suppress women.

Therefore, I suggest extreme caution when making statements like "back in the day" or "nowadays they aren't as..." in the context that it was better then than now.

Click to expand...

It's a real tough issue trying to bemoan the toxicity of today, in that most other points of comparison have similar or worse trends.

Chaosmancer said:

I agree with you almost entirely, but I also am going to "well-actually" you a little bit.

See, I agree that "true manhood" (if you will) is far far closer to being an adult than anything else. But toxic ideas about manhood are not in any way new. They are ancient. You find that Beowulf was a braggart and much of his masculine ideal was defining himself by how much stronger he was than others. Enkidu from Gilgamesh was a wild man without culture, and only became a "real man" after having sex with a woman. The idea of "real men don't cry" can be traced to stoicism in ancient greece at least, and the idea that emotions are bad. There is a version of the "Tortoise and the Hare" called "The Hare and the Hedgehog" where the Hare is pompous to his "lesser man" and runs himself to death rather than admit that he lost, an idea that has to have been a response to something in the culture at the time.

I wonder if the reason it seems so much worse these days is that modern society is so stressful for us. So we seek some validation by looking to what people claimed made them strong and manly, and cling to that like a life preserver. Because one thing you can say about toxic masculinity is that it projects confidence, so when you are feeling lost, confused and afraid and you see a man who looks like he isn't, like he is untouchably confident... it is easy to get sucked into that orbit

Click to expand...

Firstly, side note: Please don't treat 'well-actually' as a positive. Nerd culture needs to stop validating it (the 'technically correct, the best kind of correct' scene from Futurama was supposed to lampoon this mindset, and instead people treat it as license to continue such behavior). It treats conversation as a competition instead of a collaborative endeavor. It also assumes that, since I didn't bring something up, I clearly don't know it and you get to educate my ignorant self, boosting your nerd cred in the process. Trust me, everyone here has read most all classical myths. It is a unflattering look and I encourage you not to do it.
Regardless, there are no new things under the sun, and all concepts vary between individuals and within a culture. There have been fluctuations over time and across history. The primary distinction I would draw is that, for my great grandfather, he would not have believed that he got to decide if he was manly or not, and that his conception of manliness lay in willingness to do what he might not want to do (certainly risk, sacrifice, discomfort, and the like). The LaNasa crowd seems to want to point to arbitrary metrics, and say 'this shows I am manlier than others,' and use it as validation for doing what they wanted to do in the first place.

I certainly agree that modern society includes quite a lot of issues with being uncertain to whether we're doing things right, living up to expectations (out own, society, etc.), and seeking validation in all sorts of sources. It is likely a reason that the online/social media toxic masculinity subcultures have had such relatively good capacity to recruit -- someone saying that you're doing things right, on team right, and are better than all those other people (you believe are) naysaying you us a heck of a positive form of reinforcement.

Super-tangentially, on various content aggregator sites and the like, I keep seeing ads for '_____ crate' services which will send people things like straight razors, whiskey in little oak barrels, grilling tools, cheap 'damascus steel' hatchets or knives, and other products I'm assuming are meant to appeal to the idea of 'I'm more a man if I have and or spend my money on these types of things.' I wonder if those are part of the same mechanic, just meant to fleece money from people instead of sway them to a particular socio-political mindset/group.

Willie the Duck said:

As I said, I am loath to do any kind of 'kids these days' kind of commentary (and honestly am beginning to regret bringing this up already), because stuff being better bitd is mostly rubbish. However, and this is strictly from experience of people in my own family, I think the term manliness was 1) more a term others got to apply to you, not a mantle you wore, and 2) at least partly more framed as men rather than boys instead of men rather than girls, etc. (whatever the not-real-men are in the minds of the toxic masculinity set these days -- something about eating soy and liking to be cuckolded or whatever bizarre thing it is this week).

Click to expand...

I hope you don't end up regretting bringing it up, because it is an angle I hadn't had words for, but that perfectly encapsulates the issue in my head.

Willie the Duck said:

Firstly, side note: Please don't treat 'well-actually' as a positive. Nerd culture needs to stop validating it (the 'technically correct, the best kind of correct' scene from Futurama was supposed to lampoon this mindset, and instead people treat it as license to continue such behavior). It treats conversation as a competition instead of a collaborative endeavor. It also assumes that, since I didn't bring something up, I clearly don't know it and you get to educate my ignorant self, boosting your nerd cred in the process. Trust me, everyone here has read most all classical myths. It is a unflattering look and I encourage you not to do it.

Click to expand...

I completely didn't intend to treat it as positive, which is why I chose the phrasing I did. I fully acknowledge that I was very potentially acting like a bit of an ass, which is why I added that line.

However, the thing about "well everyone knows" is that there is always someone who doesn't know. I could assume you already are aware of and have made the same connections I have, and stay silent, but it is impossible to know whether or not that is the case. There are many times when I have assumed someone knew the same things I knew, only to find out that they didn't and that was the source of a major disconnect between our views. And especially in a text format, it is impractical to try and suss that out without falling into this trap.

Willie the Duck said:

Regardless, there are no new things under the sun, and all concepts vary between individuals and within a culture. There have been fluctuations over time and across history. The primary distinction I would draw is that, for my great grandfather, he would not have believed that he got to decide if he was manly or not, and that his conception of manliness lay in willingness to do what he might not want to do (certainly risk, sacrifice, discomfort, and the like). The LaNasa crowd seems to want to point to arbitrary metrics, and say 'this shows I am manlier than others,' and use it as validation for doing what they wanted to do in the first place.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Willie the Duck said:

I certainly agree that modern society includes quite a lot of issues with being uncertain to whether we're doing things right, living up to expectations (out own, society, etc.), and seeking validation in all sorts of sources. It is likely a reason that the online/social media toxic masculinity subcultures have had such relatively good capacity to recruit -- someone saying that you're doing things right, on team right, and are better than all those other people (you believe are) naysaying you us a heck of a positive form of reinforcement.

Click to expand...

Agreed. As you brushed up against with the "technically correct" reference earlier, it is a heck of a drug to be completely confident in the fact that you are not only right, but right when other people are wrong.

Willie the Duck said:

Super-tangentially, on various content aggregator sites and the like, I keep seeing ads for '_____ crate' services which will send people things like straight razors, whiskey in little oak barrels, grilling tools, cheap 'damascus steel' hatchets or knives, and other products I'm assuming are meant to appeal to the idea of 'I'm more a man if I have and or spend my money on these types of things.' I wonder if those are part of the same mechanic, just meant to fleece money from people instead of sway them to a particular socio-political mindset/group.

Click to expand...

Eh, yes and no?

For my thoughts, I don't see it as much different than the sports teams selling their parphenalia or the anime gear and statuettes people buy. People like having physical items that represent who they are as people, what their interests are. Some of them are just advertised to people who like being outdoors, or who like whiskey. Some of them are ways to make money off people who are stuck in the tribalism mindset of displaying their colors.

I like to imagine that eventually it will become entirely stuff being sold to people who just enjoy those activities, and stops being a thing about masculinity or femininity. Heck, as much as I catch myself in the trap of thinking I "need to be a man" I honestly wish for a time when those terms are basically meaningless. But that gets into wanting society completely restructured to get rid of these pointless divisions and expectations.

My thought in the SFNG being real & for sale vs never real and never sold matters mainly if nuTSR is making any legal claims that depend on the former if the the latter is true…or vice versa.

That gets them in the “are you lying now or were you lying then” trap.

Tom aka Jedion
Wow

Graph Paper Architect said:

Tom aka Jedion
Wow

Click to expand...

I’m reminded of a biblical passage I’ve been using a lot recently.

“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?” Mark 8:36

Looks like E.G. has sold his soul for some kind of worldly promise. And the way this saga is trending, J. LaN‘s promises may be pure vapor. Not only does he probably have no intention of fulfilling his posited promises to EG, he may not be able to once this case is resolved.

The only thing EG will gain is anger & disgust from the community...because pity won’t be on the store shelves anymore.

Graph Paper Architect said:

Tom aka Jedion
Wow

Click to expand...

Well, if there was any lingering doubt that Ernie wholeheartedly endorses nuTSR's homophobia, racism, and transphobia, this absolutely erases it. He's even got an official little seal. Good lord.

Little seals are adorable. This is what Ernie has, right?



(I avoid videos on nasty subjects. Never know what might be in ‘em.)

Riley said:

Little seals are adorable. This is what Ernie has, right?

View attachment 263906

(I avoid videos on nasty subjects. Never know what might be in ‘em.)

Click to expand...

Sadly, no, this is not the little seal that Ernie has. He has a little "Ernie Gygax seal of approval" that nuTSR is now using on their products.

Why would anybody want to buy a product approved by someone who has no track record of producing anything, and even worse, the only producing record he has is driving a few project into the ground.

At least they did not go with ''Gygax Approved'' to try gather some confused customers.

And let's be honest, that seal is pretty creepy.

Tales and Chronicles said:

Why would anybody want to buy a product approved by someone who has no track record of producing anything, and even worse, the only producing record he has is driving a few project into the ground.

Click to expand...

Well I mean it's kind of bad to opt to not buy something because the creator has no track record of producing anything. New creators are a thing. That said being wary of those creators and their products is completely justified.