Dannager;6169847It is [I said:
one thing[/I] to acknowledge that the world is inherently an imperfectly fair place due to factors beyond our control. It is another damned thing entirely to use that as justification or an excuse for behaving poorly, which is what you're doing here. Yes, the world isn't fair. Does that give you, or anyone else, license to act like a brat? No.
What is fair is not irrelevant.
Quite true. And just because speeding is omnipresent doesn't make it any less illegal. And just because cursing is rude doesn't mean that everyone over the age of about 5 has cursed. But it does change your tactic for dealing with it. Hand-wringing over how people should obey the law and never speed, or how they should never say naughty words, or how they should be fair, ignores the behavior of actual human beings. Yeah, we'd all love to live in a world of unicorns and rainbows, but that ain't the world that exists, and there's little point in stating the obvious. That doesn't give anyone permission, but it does give us context on dealing with the problem.
What is fair isn't irrelevant, it's just not useful in any real sense. Are we unfair? Yes. Obviously. Would you like to understand why and work to move the needle, or just stand there wishing on a star about how things should be different?
Again, as above: it's one thing to point out that people are inherently irrational. It is another thing entirely to use that to justify behaving in an irrational manner about something you should approach with rational thought.
Here's how this sounds to me:
"How people are shouldn't justify how they behave."
To which I can only admit befuddlement. There is no such thing as a person so devoid of context that behavior is not influenced (and, often, determined) by what they are when they arrive at the moment of deciding how to behave.
I'm going to say something now that shouldn't be controversial, but apparently is controversial to certain people anyway: Some opinions are more supportable than others, and some opinions should be given less respect than others.
It's key to maintain the distinction between an opinion and an emotion, though. An opinion like "I think we should invent a mecha defense force!" is an argument for an action, and there is evidence for and against it. A feeling like "I think mechas are cool" isn't the same kind of statement, though, and isn't a matter of evidence and support.
"I hate 5e!" is pretty obviously an emotional statement, and so is a valid reflection of someone's emotional state. "I think WotC should just re-publish 1e forever!" is an opinion that may be based on that emotion, and that has pros and cons and evidence for and against.
Emotions aren't right or wrong, they're just unconscious reactions, so no one is wrong to feel an overwhelming irrational hate for 5e, because that's just what they're feeling. It's a valid emotional response, because there's no such thing as an invalid emotional response, because emotions aren't controlled by our conscious mind. The 5e-hater didn't CHOOSE to hate 5e, she just DOES.
I would argue that it's not, actually. A passionate love for 5e reflects an appreciation for the game and a desire to play it, which will likely make the game more enjoyable to play. Meanwhile, a biting hatred of 5e reflects a fixation with something that you purport to want nothing to do with, and serves no productive purpose whatsoever. It demonstrates that you value tearing something down more than building something up, and that you'd rather spend your time on being negative about something you don't enjoy than being positive about something you do.
We don't need to hide what we feel, we just need to be able to talk about it. So someone hates 5e with the irrational burning rage of a thousand YouTube commenters. Good. That's a powerful reaction. Lets explore that in more detail. What, specifically, triggers them when they look at 5e? What would it involve for 5e to offend less? That's a wealth of knowledge about demands that can be met and markets that can be sold to and choices that can be made.
That's all immensely useful, because it builds something else up. A fire burns down a forest, but it makes the ground fertile for the next plants. Take apart your iPhone and you begin to see how it works. Destruction is an inextricable part of creation, and criticism is an inherent element of creativity.
Again, the notion that all opinions are equally worthwhile is a false one. It's understandable that some would want to push the notion that they are equally worthwhile, if their own opinions are being repeatedly shown to be unsupportable. Making opinions immune to criticism certainly goes a long way in evening the playing field for the people with poorly thought-out opinions.
I see you girding to fight this "Some opinions suck!" battle, but I'm not so interested in the clash. The idea to publish only 1e forever may or may not be a good idea (though the OSR seems to be doing pretty OK!), but the feeling of hate someone has for a given noun isn't the same thing, and I imagine you'd agree with that distinction, because it matches reality. Yeah, ideas have varying weights of veracity. But "I hate 5e!" isn't one of those ideas.
)
