D&D General (Anecdotal) conversations with Asian gamers on some problems they currently face in the D&D world of RPG gaming

[Snarf Zagyg]

Generally, and I'm not saying this means you in specific, when someone talks about free speech in that way then they are talking about what is freequently called "Freeze Peach" - the concept that free speech means freedom from criticism. That your free speech means that everyone else must shut up and listen in worshipful silence.

Critising something, critiquing it, and calling out flaws is a part of free speech. Pointing out that something is racist is a legitimate use of free speech. If people are to be allowed "to express onesself creatively or intellectually in the public space" then one of the freedoms they must have is the ability to respond freely - and that includes saying when and why they find something offensive. Indeed a coherent critique is expressing oneseself intellectually.

Anyone who thinks that free speech should be an absolute should therefore have not the slightest objection to such callouts because they are an integral part of free speech - and an integral part of free speech specifically in the ways you say are good. Also if we are talking about certain modes of speech stifling discussion then things like racism that attempt to remove people from the conversation because of who they are do that far far more severely than criticism. Therefore you should be more in favour of racists being censored than censoring people pointing out racism.

This, especially the part I bolded, is nonsense. Are you going to misuse Popper's Paradox too?

Adhering to principles of free speech means that you are not in favor of speech that you support; this is such a truism that everyone is familiar with the (incorrect) attribution to Voltaire of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Your remarkably twisted formulation is nothing more than the censorious words of those who have always sought to deprive minorities of speech before, twisted around yet again. "Speech I like is good, speech I don't like is bad; therefore speech I like is allowed and promoted, and speech I don't like should be censored"

No, thank you. I would rather a million bigots speak out against me and my life than allow you to dictate who gets to speak. This common cause between those who want control is as old as time- the Meese/Dworkin pact.

And the reason I can say this, now, is because I have seen how these principles have played out over time. I have seen the positive impact that they have had in my life, and the life of others. I don't want anyone deciding what is, and isn't, appropriate or "good for me," because that is a weapon that is always used for ill.

So please, take your good intentions and lectures elsewhere. Don't tell me what speech I need to favor and censor. And don't pretend to speak for the people that have suffered to get us to where we are today.

And, for what it's worth, anyone in a position of being able to censor speech is in a position of power, no matter what jargon they are using today.

I want my games to be inclusive because that's how it should be, and because I know from personal experience how difficult it was. Because it's the right thing to do. But I don't need to censor bigots to do that; bigotry will be defeated because it's wrong, and people speak out against it. Not because you get to choose what is, and isn't, appropriate speech.

 

[Aldarc]

(1) More attention at time of release (explicity stated in my post). A publisher/author can not predict how the public will respond to their work in 35/80/... years from now. But they should be smart enough to understand when something is controversial today.

Public attention drawn by mass media giant vs. public attention drawn to fringe hobby supplement book. But there have been a number of participants in these various threads that have said that OA has received ample criticism from Asian Americans for decades since its publication so it is not as if OA was without controversy. However, the demographics of the game were admittedly different back then though. We have people among minority and marginalized groups as consumers now. So I guess we say that 10 out of 10 Midwestern white guys did not find OA offensive back in the day. Hoorah, I guess.

I have previously stated in this thread that I applaud the updates to Curse of Strahd and Tomb of Annihilation. CoS and ToA are part of the now.

So mustaches can be drawn on the Mona Lisa? But I thought that OA was art that should be preserved for the sake of posterity? This is one reason among many why I'm not terribly convinced about the authenticity of people complaining about censorship because it's okay for WotC to self-censor themselves by rewriting the text. And there is virtually no outrage about preserving the "history of the game" or the "original text as written" when it comes to CoS and ToA. Silence. Crickets.

(3) This doesn't tell me anything, since I have never stated this. I refer to post #8.

Regardless of what you stated, I am asking your opinion about how the general trend regarding discussion has gone from largely denying any racism to adopting a discourse that attempts to relativize the racism.

(4) It is the most compelling defence (see (1)).

If that is truly the most compelling argument one can muster, then the Titanic is already sinking.

Definitely better than someone saying 'this product is more important/influential than that one'.

So you don't think that the public impact of the producer has any impact on degree of public attention?

We are having an argument about what is "better". You can't agree with the statement 'WotC is being hypocritical for selling OA' while at the same time ignoring the fact that publishers make a profit printing public domain books that have (again, to our current standards) dated and offensive content. Doesn't the publisher have a moral obligation to stop spreading offensive content?

Going back through the conversation from the point where you bring up Bram Stoker's Dracula (and posts before that), that does not appear to be the case as you were responding to @Undrave (and @Umbran) regarding accessibility and public entitlement to written works. So why are you shifting the goal posts now and framing this discussion about what is "better"?

You're also ignoring the fact that different countries have different public domain laws.

Um what? Up til now I've just been trying to get you to understand how the nature of public domain creates a critical difference between these two cases.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't want to get pulled into another discussion on OA and the current culture war... but a quick comment on #1:

I live in a rural area near a small town of about 3,500, serving as the hub for a greater area of about 15,000 people. "Where are you from?" is a legit conversation topic that will come up in the first 5 minutes of conversations with anybody new, at church, at a game, or anywhere else. It doesn't matter what your skin color is. We have a solid mix of "grew up here," "moved here to escape the big city," and "grew up here, moved away for 20 years, moved back." No social repercussions or anything. It's just small talk and part of getting to know someone. We've found at least 3 people who used to live in the same suburb we moved from 3 years ago.

The analogy I use in cases like this is "Yo mama" jokes. They are a part of culture and very little harm is meant by them - but would you tell a "yo mama" joke to someone when you knew their mother had died two days ago? Even if you normally told them all the time?

If not then you can understand how context matters in what you say to people. And "Where are you from?" is a question that's close to some sorts of racism that a lot of non-white Americans will have experienced. It's the follow-up "No, where are you really from?" that's the truly toxic question of course.

 

[Todd Roybark]

@Snarf Zagyg mentioned me, and a post I made. Thank you for the kind words. These threads have gotten exhausting. Snarf, thank you, for being conscientious. This is a very nuanced issue, and wether someone agrees or disagrees with your positions, you are respectful, and engaging earnestly.

choices are being made as to what is or is not available, what people can say, and what opinions can be shared; they become the de facto arbiters of free speech, free expression, opinion, and artistic freedom. It is uncharted territory, and we should tread very, very carefully.

Mercurius, how is this uncharted territory?
The racism of REH sold well, and was most likely encouraged by the editors of Weird Tales and other publications.
There are no Black Conan stories published in 1933, with Black Conan defeating hordes of celts through inborn racial purity. Conan is the best, per the text of the stories, due to his Cimmerian race.

The Asian Exclusion Act denied birth citizenship to Chinese Americans...people born in the USA. The Palmer Raids illegally revoked the citizenship of naturalized Russian and Italian citizens.

What is new for some is the white, Protestant, plurality....is no longer the plurality.

I can see, how if one is used to one's voice being dominant, or the only singular voice allowed to speak, this would feel unprecedented and very dangerous.

If you voice belongs to a group that was expected to be silent, or erased, then one group controlling the expression or non expression of your existence is as precedented as the Sun rising in the East and setting in the West.

Can we just agree if you ask someone where they are from it isn't offence, but if you then say "No, where are you really/originally from?" it is.

I can't agree to that. I trust your intentions are good, but locality matters. Los Angeles is a city of immigrants, for white people. The white person you meet in Westwood or Santa Monica, could have moved to Los Angeles 2 years ago. The person of color you see might have family roots that go back 100 years, in Los Angeles.

For 1st generation Americans, asking "where are you from" is deeply offensive. Already, they often feel treated as both: not American, and Not from where their parents came from.
The question may be correct where you live, not where I live.

I will add this aside, my spouse is an immigrant to the USA. To native born US Citizens she has no accent, she sounds like she lived in the US her whole life, due to immigrating young.
When we go to the U.K., people always inquire "Where are you from?" because to the U.K. ear she does not have an US accent. In this context, the question has never seemed offensive.

I definitely prefer a world with racism than a world with books removed from shelves for inclusivness.

For a third person to approve it or request it is fascism, maybe unintentional.

I'm italian and i know what fascism is

Stefano, I take your words at face value. I think it is quite possible
you would prefer a world with racism, and you know what fascism is.

Many of the viewpoints, of some of the posters that have identified themselves as Italians, strike me as insular.
Cultures are different, blessedly different. Yet, I have met, and in some cases, known well, people from Italy. Their views were not so insular. There can be many reasons for this.

If I see a Nazi, I will punch them...

Many trade unionists in the German Weimar Republic, thought the same thing.
In the end, the violence between National Socialists and Trade Unionists/Communists, left more dead on the Trade Unionist side.
It also had the horrible effect, that the violence in the streets pushed the traditional German Conservative party to make an alliance with the National Socialist to protect Law and Order and Property Rights.
The TL;DR of this history.......Hitler was elected Chancellor.
Indiscriminate punching of Nazis is ok in Castle Wolfenstein, in real life, the unintended consequences can be disastrous.

 

[Baba]

I am thinking about the Hobgoblin borrowing heavily from Japanese military gear. But there is something annoying about an Evil nonhuman monster race being the one that displays this.

I want D&D artists to depict Japanese esthetic.

How does one do this right, in a way that is both respectful, and creative, fresh, and playful?

Same goes for other distinctive cultures in Asia, Africa, Americas, and Europe too.

Hopefully there is a rule of thumb when borrowing styles, that works for any culture.

On the one hand, one wants to be as true as possible to the culture. On the other hand, one wants to avoid stereotypes. ... On the third hand, one wants to do something new, surprising, and creative.

It goes without saying, that one must like and admire (and understand) the culture that one is borrowing from.

The PHB does this, I think? I seem to remember the second edition PHB doing this as well, though I don't have it on hand.

Some of the styles seem inspired by medieval Europe, and some of the styles do not really resemble anything people have worn historically, except perhaps in the seventies.

But there seems to be inspiration from a variety of cultures. Consider the illustrations on pages 1, 70, 112, 134, 140, 148, 156.

They seem to encourage a plurality of possible settings.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This, especially the part I bolded, is nonsense. Are you going to misuse Popper's Paradox too?

How is it nonsense to say that racism - the attempt to kick entire people out of the conversation - is far more harmful to free speech than using speech to point out that things could be better?

Adhering to principles of free speech means that you are not in favor of speech that you support; this is such a truism that everyone is familiar with the (incorrect) attribution to Voltaire of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

And as I was pointing out if you give a crap about defending free speech that includes defending people using their speech to point out that things are racist. If you do not take the Voltaire hard line then who cares.

Your remarkably twisted formulation is nothing more than the censorious words of those who have always sought to deprive minorities of speech before, twisted around yet again. "Speech I like is good, speech I don't like is bad; therefore speech I like is allowed and promoted, and speech I don't like should be censored"

You are literally saying here "pointing out things are racist is equivalent to racism". And you accuse me of being twisted?

No, thank you. I would rather a million bigots speak out against me and my life than allow you to dictate who gets to speak.

If you believe that then there are only two possible continuations:
1: You also support the right of people to speak when they are calling out bigotry.
2: You support the right of bigots to speak and not of people to push back against bigotry. This makes you an ally of bigotry.

Which is it?1

So please, take your good intentions and lectures elsewhere. Don't tell me what speech I need to favor and censor. And don't pretend to speak for the people that have suffered to get us to where we are today.

Please stop trying to censor the right of people to speak when they see bigotry. This puts you on the side of bigots.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Snarf Zagyg mentioned me, and a post I made. Thank you for the kind words. These threads have gotten exhausting. Snarf, thank you, for being conscientious. This is a very nuanced issue, and wether someone agrees or disagrees with your positions, you are respectful, and engaging earnestly.

Mostly.

I understand exactly what you're saying; I guess it's that I get so angry when I see people on the threads, and they are usually younger (not always, but almost always) speak with this bizarre certitude about how offensive speech needs to be banned, or censored, and that's so foreign to my experience.

I think that there can be times when a certain, specific issue needs to be addressed; after WW2, for example, I can understand why (West) Germany put in the ban regarding Nazi imagery etc.

The thing is, principles (such as free speech) are something you either adhere to, or you don't. For a very long time, issues such as LGBTQ rights were defended in the America by the principles of free speech; I cannot tell you how many times people who disagreed with those rights (because of their religion, or. moral qualms, or upbringing, or ignorance, or whatever) would nonetheless still defend the principles of free speech.

They didn't agree with the speech, but they were allies of the principle. And over time, because the cause itself was good, it won out. Because the speech was heard, because people were convinced. And the reason the speech was heard was because there were a great number of people who defended that right, even when they didn't agree with the message.

On the other hand, I have repeatedly seen people, like @Neonchameleon , who supposedly knew better than the rest of us, what speech was good and what speech wasn't, abrogate to themselves the sole authority to decide what we should, and shouldn't hear. And just like him, all of these people would say it was for the best- except instead of tarring people as bigots (as he does now, because he's a peach), they would make arguments about "the children" and "just think, they'll try and get married, or adopt kids" or "what if they see men kissing on TV?"

It was terrible then, and it is terrible now.

I can appreciate that it can be hard to defend principles. Defending principles means that you have to agree with people that you don't like. And let's face it; the last few years have been trying. Most people that advocate for free speech right now are very instrumentalist; they just want their free speech to be heard ... and I know that there are many of them that would turn around and try to censor me if they had the chance.

But I would rather support their speech now, knowing that the principles of discourse are what allowed the pluralistic and open society that we have, and that are what allow us to enjoy this discourse, rather than rubbish it by supporting authoritarians who want to make decisions for me, even if those authoritarians have the best intentions.

Dworkin wanted the best for women; Meese wanted a patriarchy that denied LGBTQ rights; both found common ground in speech suppression. Same as it ever was.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

How is it nonsense to say that racism - the attempt to kick entire people out of the conversation - is far more harmful to free speech than using speech to point out that things could be better?

Thank you for admitting you don't actually know what it is.

Given your bona fides, I see no point in continuing this.

 

[Neonchameleon]

On the other hand, I have repeatedly seen people, like @Neonchameleon , who supposedly knew better than the rest of us, what speech was good and what speech wasn't, abrogate to themselves the sole authority to decide what we should, and shouldn't hear. And just like him, all of these people would say it was for the best- except instead of tarring people as bigots (as he does now, because he's a peach), they would make arguments about "the children" and "just think, they'll try and get married, or adopt kids" or "what if they see men kissing on TV?"

It was terrible then, and it is terrible now.

I can appreciate that it can be hard to defend principles. Defending principles means that you have to agree with people that you don't like. And let's face it; the last few years have been trying. Most people that advocate for free speech right now are very instrumentalist; they just want their free speech to be heard ... and I know that there are many of them that would turn around and try to censor me if they had the chance.

But I would rather support their speech now, knowing that the principles of discourse are what allowed the pluralistic and open society that we have, and that are what allow us to enjoy this discourse, rather than rubbish it by supporting authoritarians who want to make decisions for me, even if those authoritarians have the best intentions.

Dworkin wanted the best for women; Meese wanted a patriarchy that denied LGBTQ rights; both found common ground in speech suppression. Same as it ever was.

I have repeatedly seen people like @Snarf Zagyg, who supposedly knew better than the rest of us, what speech was good and what speech wasn't, abrogate to themselves the sole authority to decide what we should, and shouldn't hear. Except they do it hypocritically by only ever attacking criticism and yet somehow claiming that they are in favour of free speech and thus those people need to be silenced.

I appreciate that it chan be hard to defend principles. Defending principles means that you have to defend (not agree with, defend) people you don't like. Most people that claim to advocate for free speech right now are very insturmentalist; they just want their free speech to be heard ... and for criticism of their speech to be censored.

I disagree with Dworkin and disagree with Meese. But defending free speech means defending their right to share their opinions. @Snarf Zagyg are you the sort of authoritarian who would want to censor either Dworkin or Meese?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thank you for admitting you don't actually know what it is.

Given your bona fides, I see no point in continuing this.

Thank you for admitting you don't actually have an understanding of the effects of racism.

I repeat my question from the previous post. Are you the sort of authoritarian who thinks that Dworkin or Meese should have been censored? Or are you in favour of unfettered free speech?