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

[Bedrockgames]

SARS-COV-2 does not care if you believe in it. And whether you support this kind of thinking does not change the reality.

I never denied COVID. I realize you are using it as an example, but given how people have responded to me on this thread, I think there is a lot of room for folks to get the wrong impression with the way this post is phrased.

It is logically inescapable. You live in a country with 300+ million others, on a planet with seven billion and more people. You, as an individual, may go be a hermit on a mountain, taking part in as little of the world as possible, and make a claim that you are "neutral". But, there is no isolation for any major corporate entity - they exist to not be isolated. They are part of a world economy, a world supply chain, a world labor pool, and a world of shared energy production.

Again, I don't think this is a sound argument Umbran. And I think it is a morally flawed one. It assumes there are two sides which people must join to every issue, rather than a spectrum of views. It also denies the reality of neutrality, which is simply wrong. If there is a conflict about something, one can choose not to be actively involved. Neutral nations and conscientious objectors arise all the time. Convoluted arguments about how they are actually deeply imbedded in a system that makes refraining from involvement a logical impossibility, don't seem like particularly logical arguments to me.

This is especially important when considering the role of corporations. Corporations weld considerable power. They lobby and influence government policy. They have power over their employees. They choose which aspects of our culture and society to engage. They can choose to be neutral on matters of politics and morality. That doesn't mean they are entirely free from the system, but it means they can choose not advance causes. And I just don't trust corporations to make the right choices on moral issues. I think you are asking for trouble when you start demanding that companies weigh in on the moral issues of the day (for all the reasons I gave). Now if you disagree that is fine. I don't pretend to know everything. This is just my opinion. But you are talking to me like I am child who is living in ignorance and you are the teacher here to guide me, and that is kind of insulting. I arrived at my position on this issue though a lot of thought, life experience and learning.

I'm not suggesting they take stances on political issues, or take sides in partizan political contests. I don't want corporate entities to back political candidates in elections. I just say that they are ethically on the hook for what they do to their people, and the world around them.

Then how can they not take stands on political issues and take sides in partisan contests. If neutrality is impossible, and everything is political, and all of us have to pick a side, shouldn't corporations be picking sides?

What you seem to not get is that they are making and following policies and taking actions, regardless. They are having impact, regardless. So, they will do harm, or not, regardless of claims of neutrality. The only question is how they are held responsible for their actions.

"With great power comes great responsibility," is not just for Spider-Man.

Again, I think the better approach here is to reduce the power corporations have over us, rather than use spiderman as a moral guide. I really don't trust these kinds of institutions to make good moral judgments. The less involved they are in the moral issues of our day, the better. And people in this thread are relying on the power of the free market (which simply favors those who have the financial resources to vote with their dollar) to lead us down a moral path. Corporations are about making money. Pretending they are about anything else, is very unwise. They can certainly use moral language to their advantage, they can appeal to peoples sense of moral outrage to win customers. But these are profit driven institutions. Don't let them convince you that they are on your side simply because they are speaking your language or saying the right thing on twitter. That is all calculated and all just an attempt to get customers (and they would go the opposite direction in a heartbeat if they felt that would get them more profits).

 

[Wishbone]

I have expressed my views on this over the course of the threads. I will try to do so again. It is late though and I am not sure how well I will express myself. But I am not going to take you through each step of my logic to "explain how arrived at that judgement". That seems like venturing back into the territory where you are insisting I answer your series of questions.

[Snip]

What I will say is today I think people often mistake content for message. And the two are not the same. And I think we often leap to conclusions about what someone is trying to say with their content, and that we can be especially unforgiving in this era anytime a creator is perceived to have mistepped. I don't know that any of that has made people more tolerant or empathetic.

Not sure if that answers you questions. That is about as much specifics as I can give on those two questions at his hour.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I keep feeling like having these conversations is a large part of the point.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'll just dissect your last paragraph:

Again, I think the better approach here is to reduce the power corporations have over us, rather than use spiderman as a moral guide.

Sounds great. But do you have a plan for reducing the power corporations have? Or does this just give them a free pass on moral issues unless/until we reduce their power?

I really don't trust these kinds of institutions to make good moral judgments.

Again, on the surface sounds...something. But how is this any different from just letting them take immoral or amoral actions? You can ask, or even demand, that companies make sound moral judgments, without trusting them to do it well.

The less involved they are in the moral issues of our day, the better.

Sure. But they are involved. They...the ones we are talking about...are publishing material with meaning, with connotations. Maybe not even intentionally, but that's neither here nor there. Their actions have an impact.

And people in this thread are relying on the power of the free market (which simply favors those who have the financial resources to vote with their dollar) to lead us down a moral path.

No, nobody here is suggesting we abdicate moral leadership to corporations. We are asking them to at least try to do the right thing. We are trying to lead them down a moral path.

Corporations are about making money. Pretending they are about anything else, is very unwise.

Who is pretending that? Corporations exist to make money, and:
a) Sometimes doing the right thing helps you make more money
b) Corporations often have employees who feel compelled to both make money and do the right thing.

They can certainly use moral language to their advantage, they can appeal to peoples sense of moral outrage to win customers.

Or they can follow shifts in public sentiment to win customers. Or they can alienate fewer people in other cultures to win customers. Or they can produce better content by shedding out-dated, one-dimensional, adolescent worldviews to win more customers.

But these are profit driven institutions. Don't let them convince you that they are on your side simply because they are speaking your language or saying the right thing on twitter. That is all calculated and all just an attempt to get customers (and they would go the opposite direction in a heartbeat if they felt that would get them more profits).

These final sentences make it really hard for me to believe that you take these issues (such as the debate over OA) at all seriously. It certainly sounds like you think anybody supporting change is doing so for cynical reasons.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'll just dissect your last paragraph:



Sounds great. But do you have a plan for reducing the power corporations have? Or does this just give them a free pass on moral issues unless/until we reduce their power?

I am a voter, not a policy maker. So I have ideas that if I had a chance to vote on them, I would be in favor of. But I also understand this is complex and I am probably the last person who should be offering policy ideas. I think what I would like to see number one is elimination of corporate lobbying. Beyond that, I would like there to be protections for employees in place so people can't be punished by their employer for things like taking political positions on facebook that the company doesn't want them to have.

Again, on the surface sounds...something. But how is this any different from just letting them take immoral or amoral actions? You can ask, or even demand, that companies make sound moral judgments, without trusting them to do it well.

But we are normalizing companies being a part of the political and moral conversation. That feels good when they are doing things that support issues you believe in. When they don't do that, and start thwarting issues you believe in, I promise you it is going to hurt, and it is definitely going to happen eventually.

Look, I do want companies to be held to account if they are engaged in behavior that is harming the country in some way. I mean I don't want supply trucks that bring food to grocery stores putting dangerous chemicals in the same shipments as flour and fruit. In terms of media content, I am a lot less interested in policing that.

Sure. But they are involved. They...the ones we are talking about...are publishing material with meaning, with connotations. Maybe not even intentionally, but that's neither here nor there. Their actions have an impact.

What do you want them to do here? It is an old book. It comes from a different era, and the first edition was published by a different company originally. Do you want them to stop publishing it?

No, nobody here is suggesting we abdicate moral leadership to corporations. We are asking them to at least try to do the right thing. We are trying to lead them down a moral path.

I've already given my reasons for why I think this is a bad idea. I don't see value in repeating what I've already stated. If you disagree, fair enough.

Who is pretending that? Corporations exist to make money, and:
a) Sometimes doing the right thing helps you make more money
b) Corporations often have employees who feel compelled to both make money and do the right thing.

A) doing the wrong thing can also help you make money. And corporations are not good judges of right and wrong. They are good judges of profitable and not profitable.
B) Sure individuals in companies shouldn't do things they morally object to. But their purpose in the company is to help it make money. I know a few people who have made tough decisions working for a company, in order to do the right thing. I know a lot more who exploit the morality of their customers to maximize profits and punish the competition. I think you are playing with fire when you mix moral crusades with corporate power.

Or they can follow shifts in public sentiment to win customers. Or they can alienate fewer people in other cultures to win customers. Or they can produce better content by shedding out-dated, one-dimensional, adolescent worldviews to win more customers.

Public sentiment is not always in line with what is morally right. Yes they can try to be less alienating, but a lot of this discussion is people disagreeing over what is alienating.

I do think they should produce good content. I am reluctant to equate moral content with good content though. Again, I think this gets into the issue of mistaking content for message.

These final sentences make it really hard for me to believe that you take these issues (such as the debate over OA) at all seriously. It certainly sounds like you think anybody supporting change is doing so for cynical reasons.

I don't. I think most corporations are doing it cynically. I don't know why you would take my skepticism of cooperate power as evidence that I don't take issues seriously. Obviously I disagree with a lot of your assumptions about these issues. I think we are both probably on the left side of the political spectrum. But there are a lot of philosophical assumptions about race, identity, and media that we clearly don't share. I am not saying this to invite further political debate. I just want to be clear because it seems like you might equate 'taking these issues seriously' with agreeing with those set of assumptions.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

“There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”

~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
(106-43 B.C.) Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator​

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.

Friedrich Nietzsche

"I would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince, who would find it to his interest to have me ground to powder in a mortar: I should be quite sure of being ground to powder. If I were a sovereign, I would not wish to have to deal with atheist courtiers, whose interest it would be to poison me: I should have to be taking antidotes every day. It is therefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the idea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be deeply engraved in people's minds. "

Voltaire, French philosopher.

13:23 Confucius said: “The Superior Man is in harmony, but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony.”

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong".

Thomas Sowell, economist.

“If a businessman makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences. If a bureaucrat makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences.”

Ayn Rand, writter.

"From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!"

Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader.

---

To say "if you are .... then you have to feel guilty" is a wrong strategy. It isn't only mutual respect, but also forgiveness, reconciliation and mutual trust, and here everybody has to make an effort. How to explain it with an example? the mutants from X-Men comics. Hundred of mutants are honest people, only want to live their lives with hurt nobody, but a couple of rotten apples are enough to spoil the reputation of all the collective. Hate against mutants is wrong, but also the reverse racism against the normies/"flatscans" by Magneto and the brotherhood of evil mutants. Or in "the Planet of the Apes" where the oppressed became the new oppressors. If we only say "those are the bad guys" then we only will are replacing a poison with other. To avoid the fall in the dark side of the force, to not becomes monsters like in the Nietzsche's warning then we have to defend the ethical principles of Natural Law, values as the good sense against the demagoge, trust against the fear, humilility against the blind pride, understanding against the predjudices compasion and patience against the resentment and the rage. Racism is wrong, but not all Caucasians are racists, neither all racists are Caucasians.

My suggestion is using no-Caucasians as main characters enough interesting public identify with them. I have seen too much manga and anime to forget those characters are Japanese. When I enjoyed Disney's Aladdin TV cartoon show I forgot they were Arabians. But this can't seem forced. Miles Morales is a good guy, but I don't want him to replace Peter Parker. I want the both characters together. I don't want Ironheart replacing Iron Man, but Riri Willians as Tony Stark's pupil. Steve Urkel is one of the most annoying characters from the sitcoms, but he's the character I most identify with because I know what you feel when everybody sees your flaws but not your merits. The sitcom "the fresh prince of Bel-air" helped me to see the Banks family as normal people. Don't forget usually the positive stimulus are the best way to make people to change. We need diplomacy and social skills.

* I loved "Kung-Fu", the tv show, (what helped me to know more about Chinese culture) but the sequel "kung-fu the legend continues" became a true "jumping the shark".

 

[Imaculata]

Again, I don't think this is a sound argument Umbran. And I think it is a morally flawed one. It assumes there are two sides which people must join to every issue, rather than a spectrum of views. It also denies the reality of neutrality, which is simply wrong. If there is a conflict about something, one can choose not to be actively involved. Neutral nations and conscientious objectors arise all the time. Convoluted arguments about how they are actually deeply imbedded in a system that makes refraining from involvement a logical impossibility, don't seem like particularly logical arguments to me.

Not to every issue, but in regards to racism, there is no neutral stance.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I am a voter, not a policy maker. So I have ideas that if I had a chance to vote on them, I would be in favor of. But I also understand this is complex and I am probably the last person who should be offering policy ideas. I think what I would like to see number one is elimination of corporate lobbying. Beyond that, I would like there to be protections for employees in place so people can't be punished by their employer for things like taking political positions on facebook that the company doesn't want them to have.

But we are normalizing companies being a part of the political and moral conversation. That feels good when they are doing things that support issues you believe in. When they don't do that, and start thwarting issues you believe in, I promise you it is going to hurt, and it is definitely going to happen eventually.

Look, I do want companies to be held to account if they are engaged in behavior that is harming the country in some way. I mean I don't want supply trucks that bring food to grocery stores putting dangerous chemicals in the same shipments as flour and fruit. In terms of media content, I am a lot less interested in policing that.


What do you want them to do here? It is an old book. It comes from a different era, and the first edition was published by a different company originally. Do you want them to stop publishing it?

I've already given my reasons for why I think this is a bad idea. I don't see value in repeating what I've already stated. If you disagree, fair enough.


A) doing the wrong thing can also help you make money. And corporations are not good judges of right and wrong. They are good judges of profitable and not profitable.
B) Sure individuals in companies shouldn't do things they morally object to. But their purpose in the company is to help it make money. I know a few people who have made tough decisions working for a company, in order to do the right thing. I know a lot more who exploit the morality of their customers to maximize profits and punish the competition. I think you are playing with fire when you mix moral crusades with corporate power.

Public sentiment is not always in line with what is morally right. Yes they can try to be less alienating, but a lot of this discussion is people disagreeing over what is alienating.

I do think they should produce good content. I am reluctant to equate moral content with good content though. Again, I think this gets into the issue of mistaking content for message.

I don't. I think most corporations are doing it cynically. I don't know why you would take my skepticism of cooperate power as evidence that I don't take issues seriously. Obviously I disagree with a lot of your assumptions about these issues. I think we are both probably on the left side of the political spectrum. But there are a lot of philosophical assumptions about race, identity, and media that we clearly don't share. I am not saying this to invite further political debate. I just want to be clear because it seems like you might equate 'taking these issues seriously' with agreeing with those set of assumptions.

You may have your own reasons and your own philosophy here, but you keep repeating the talking points of people who don't think racism is a problem.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

My suggestion is using no-Caucasians as main characters enough interesting public identify with them. I have seen too much manga and anime to forget those characters are Japanese. When I enjoyed Disney's Aladdin TV cartoon show I forgot they were Arabians. But this can't seem forced. Miles Morales is a good guy, but I don't want him to replace Peter Parker. I want the both characters together. I don't want Ironheart replacing Iron Man, but Riri Willians as Tony Stark's pupil. Steve Urkel is one of the most annoying characters from the sitcoms, but he's the character I most identify with because I know what you feel when everybody sees your flaws but not your merits. The sitcom "the fresh prince of Bel-air" helped me to see the Banks family as normal people. Don't forget usually the positive stimulus are the best way to make people to change. We need diplomacy and social skills.

Your experience with film reminds me of my experiences living abroad. After growing up in the US, I've spent more than a year living in each Morocco (1 year), Vietnam (3 year), and Georgia (the country; 7 years). While each country has many differences, most of those differences are surface level. In Georgia, most people refused to eat octopus. Likewise, in Morocco wearing a tank top is considered scandalous. Ultimately, though, I've found more similarities than differences between people in those countries. Cultural differences always boil down to different expressions of the same underlying principles and desires.

Let's look at an example. All humans categorize substances into the categories food and not food. In Vietnam, people tend to considered it food, while in Georgia, people tend to place it into the category not food. Nevertheless, I've met individuals in Vietnam who refuse to eat octopus, while in Georgia I met individuals who enjoyed eating octopus.

Standards of dress are similar. In America, everyone would be surprised if I decided to tan at the beach in business suit. Likewise, they would be similarly astonished if I showed up to a business meeting in a speedo. While showing up to a business suit to tan would be ineffective, the inappropriateness of wearing a speedo to a business meeting is mentally constructed. This is because style of dress is rarely an objective principle, but a means of communication.

A woman wearing a tank top in public tells Moroccan society that she does not abide by the traditional norms of femininity. Choosing to wear a tank top is more of a speech act - a declaration of values - than a fashion choice. Many modern westerns see this practice as the the result of a male patriarchy limiting a woman's clothing choices. To some extent, that is true. Society has defined standards of dress, which are limiting. Those standards are meaningful as social signals (communication). The choice to wear a tank top is not one of style, but rebelliousness. It is no different than my showing up to a business meeting in that speedo: by doing do I would characterize myself as unprofessional - not because there is anything inherently wrong with the speedo, but because I am deliberately bending social norms in order to provoke a reaction.

That is not to say that such rebelliousness does not have a place. Perhaps, a set of social norms are tyrannical. Perhaps, the social norms of one country alienates its citizens from the rest of the world to the detriment of human well-being inside that country.

Nevertheless, I believe these social norms to all stem from (and are physical expressions of) the same human instincts: the desires for survival, comfort, pleasure, status, reproduction, cooperation, acceptance, love, competence, ingenuity, and domination.

I have lived in four continents and done extensive reading on the subject. Skins color to my mind has no affect on the essence of what makes us human. As such, I do not find racial categorization particularly useful. Knowing that a man is Black, white, Asian, Latino, etc. tells me much less about that person than whether he/she is a teacher or financial manager, for instance.

Two men, both Black, one from Detroit, the other from Morocco will have less in common than a Black and a white man from the Detroit. Likewise, two whites, one from California, one from Georgia will have similarly less is in common than a white man and an Asian man from California.

I have, therefore, concluded that the act of racial categorization is a racist one. It promotes the ridiculous claim that race imbues individuals with meaningfully different characteristics, a claim that fits neither with my research nor life experience.

As for racial identity, I am open to the idea that the average Black American may share certain experiences, different from those of the average white American. However, I skeptical that those differences stem from the person's skin color, as opposed to racist perceptions of skin color in American society. In other words, while I believe racial categorization is a racist act, I do not deny its prevalence.

Personally, I believe the solution is to reduce and eliminate the concept of racial identity. I would like to see skin color reduced a physical characteristic as inconsequential as the presence of a mole on an individual's left butt cheek.

The recent anti-racism movement and especially its influence on media and literature directly conflicts with my values. To my mind, it has enlarged racial divides, not reduced them. As a long term strategy, it does not coincide my conception of a just world; therefore, I oppose it. To characterize me as an "angry write man" or a "defender of western civilization" is simply incorrect. I do not see myself as a white man. I see myself a human being who happens, by chance, to possess a penis and white skin. Likewise, I find many faults with western civilization; I would certainly not describe myself as one of its defenders. If I loved western society so much, I wouldn't have chosen to live outside western society for nearly all of my adult life.

 

[Imaculata]

The recent anti-racism movement and especially its influence on media and literature directly conflicts with my values. To my mind, it has enlarged racial divides, not reduced them.

In my opinion, it has put a magnifying glass over a large divide that was already there. And it has called it to the attention of all of us, who had their blinders on.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

In my opinion, it has put a magnifying glass over a large divide that was already there. And it has called it to the attention of all of us, who had their blinders on.

Absolutely. I'm fine with that interpretation. Like I said, I haven't been the US for 10 years.

Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that the anti-racism movement reinforces the concept of skin-color as identity, as opposed to skin color as butt-cheek mole.