D&D 5E D&D Beyond Self-Censorship: Pride Month Digital Dice Blocked In Some Countries

[billd91]

Any good we try to do right now that seems "pointless" in the short-term (because it won't seem to change anything right now), can eventually pay off dividends down the line. Heck, the Equal Rights Amendment in the United States passed 50 years ago... and I think if we were to compare the rights and standing of women between 1972 and today, the passing of the ERA did a whole lot of good. It still ain't perfect by any stretch of course... but all us men and women who have grown up with the ERA as a thing have helped shift the narrative and our society for the better. Just like those who will grow up under the banner of Pride will do so in the decades to come.

um…

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

the Equal Rights Amendment in the United States passed 50 years ago

I have some bad news for you, I'm afraid.

 

[LordEntrails]

But demanding that companies do better is a pretty fundamental aspect of activism in our current societies,

It is. And its still something I find strange. In general I don't think companies should be obligated to engage in social issues. And when they chose to do so, should they not be allowed to do so as they wish? And of course, if we don't like how a company choses to do that, then we as individuals get to decide how we interact with them.

But just as I believe that I have no right to insist on how another human choses to interact on a social issue (as long as they are not doing so illegally and/or immorally), I don't see an individual's right to demand such of a corporation. BUT, I do hope that people and corporations CAN engage in discussions on the ways in which they chose to get involved (or not) in social issues.

So, by all means, try to engage WotC in discussing their decision if they are willing. But if they chose not to engage in such a discussion, take it for what it is and move on.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

My suspects are that censure aren't be Erdogan. This doesn't know even about the existence of D&D. This may be something beyond regional self-censure.

 

[jgsugden]

....
I don't know what can be done about this, but I thought this kind of hypocritical behaviour should've been made known.

WotC/Beyondisn't going to do more than Marvel did when dealing with Dr. Strange's issues.

 

[Oblivnow]

It is. And its still something I find strange. In general I don't think companies should be obligated to engage in social issues. And when they chose to do so, should they not be allowed to do so as they wish? And of course, if we don't like how a company choses to do that, then we as individuals get to decide how we interact with them.

But just as I believe that I have no right to insist on how another human choses to interact on a social issue (as long as they are not doing so illegally and/or immorally), I don't see an individual's right to demand such of a corporation.

I don’t believe that companies should “be allowed to do as they wish” with regards to social issues. Do you think that companies should be allowed to do and say whatever they want without judgement? The reason why we want to put pressure on companies about LGBT issues is because corporations are powerful, culturally and politically, and influencing them can help create greater public pressure to prevent things like the massive backlash against trans people that is ongoing. It is a matter of safety for us, even if you think of this as just a “social issue.” I can’t attest to your intention, but the framing you use suggests that LGBT issues are thing that is just a branding thing to take a stance on, rather than being something that directly impacts us every day.
Hope this helps you understand why we care and why this is an area that activists engage with.

 

[LordEntrails]

I don’t believe that companies should “be allowed to do as they wish” with regards to social issues.

I do, within legal and ethical bounds.

Do you think that companies should be allowed to do and say whatever they want without judgement?

No, read what I wrote.

What demands are being made? Why are you and others acting as though an ultimatum was delivered to WotC?

I'm not. You are assuming statements and opinions that I did not express.

The reason why we want to put pressure on companies about LGBT issues is because corporations are powerful, culturally and politically, and influencing them can help create greater public pressure to prevent things like the massive backlash against trans people that is ongoing.

Oh, I understand why you want someone else to take up your cause. I've no problem with that. But it is the individuals responsible for those companies that get to make the decision if they want to take up your cause or not. They are under no ethical obligation to do so.

It is a matter of safety for us, even if you think of this as just a “social issue.”

I understand the safety aspect better than you give me credit for. And as has been pointed out, maybe WotC thinks its a safety issue for them. Do they not have the obligation to do what they feel is right to keep their employees safe?

Again, I'm all for you trying to get WoC to engage and explain their decision, until they do, we are all just assuming what is the cause for their decision.

I can’t attest to your intention, but the framing you use suggests that LGBT issues are thing that is just a thing to treasure a stance on, rather than being something that directly impacts us every day.

Then don't try. As I said, I'm more aware of the daily impacts than you give me credit for. And at no point do I suggest you don't continue to engage in activism.

My only issue is when one party tries to insist that another party engages in activism in a way that is acceptable to the first party. It assume arrogance, that the first party is "right" in their choice to the exclusion of other choices. Something the LGBTQ+ community can understand.

Hope this helps you understand why we care and why this is an area that activists engage with.

And I support those who chose to engage in that activism.

 

[Oblivnow]

My only issue is when one party tries to insist that another party engages in activism in a way that is acceptable to the first party. It assume arrogance, that the first party is "right" in their choice to the exclusion of other choices. Something the LGBTQ+ community can understand.

If that is your “only issue”, then there is no problem, as that isn’t happening here. And being LGBT doesn’t mean a rejection of normative ethics or the idea that “right” and “wrong” exist. Some belliefs are wrong, and suggestion that that is hypocritical is bizarre.

 

[Greg Benage]

I have some bad news for you, I'm afraid.

I mean, technically true...

 

[LordEntrails]

If that is your “only issue”, then there is no problem, as that isn’t happening here. And being LGBT doesn’t mean a rejection of normative ethics or the idea that “right” and “wrong” exist. Some belliefs are wrong, and suggestion that that is hypocritical is bizarre.

Agreed. There is just the ... tendency of internet debates to assume that stances are absolute, and not nuanced.

In this example, I'm not arguing or stating that some beliefs are not wrong. I've just chosen not to clarify every statement I make every time. I figured after clarifying with statements like "legally and ethically" several times, therefore I hope others would assume my statements are nuanced, and not absolutes.