Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
(Anecdotal) conversations with Asian gamers on some problems they currently face in the D&D world of RPG gaming
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8032058" data-attributes="member: 7023840"><p>Mostly. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>On the other hand, I have repeatedly seen people, like [USER=87792]@Neonchameleon[/USER] , 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?"</p><p></p><p>It was terrible then, and it is terrible now.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8032058, member: 7023840"] 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 [USER=87792]@Neonchameleon[/USER] , 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
(Anecdotal) conversations with Asian gamers on some problems they currently face in the D&D world of RPG gaming
Top