5E Dice Camera Action intro video for next season, insight to the next hardback?

Status
Not open for further replies.

darjr

I crit!
Dice Camera Action posted their intro video for the next season. It's pretty cool. It has all the regulars and a few unknowns..... anybody know who they are? I think a couple are obvious but I'll leave my opinions out of it.


[video=youtube;XJigy3gT1qk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJigy3gT1qk[/video]
 
Last edited:

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
So this is obviously cancelled now eh?
Chris Perkins hasn't said anything on twitter about it. I can imagine him being asked about it and giving an awkward, pained laugh - what a mess.

If it's just a messy divorce, the show will survive. If the allegation about ProJared asking underage women for naked photos are true (and it's not looking good), then maybe not? I'm not sure how easily he could be removed/replaced...
 
Does it matter what the truth is now? That guy who created the Nerdist got hit with allegations and it never even hit a court room. He lost the panel he did at a major convention and was removed from his own show. All over allegations made on Twitter. Eventually he got it straitened out when a half dozen women who knew him well countered the allegations and he was partially restored to his previous status but the stigma is still there. His life has been forever changed by the court of public opinion. So unless this guy has lots of good friends ready to take the fight to Twitter and get his reputation restored he's pretty much toxic waste that no media will touch with a ten foot pole.

A side note... do they still have the ten foot pole in D&D 5E? I don't recall seeing it in the equipment lists but it is 2:30 AM and I'm a tad drunk. Had to wind down after getting harassed by the police while subbing a paper route for another carrier. Some old lady called in that I looked suspicious walking around with a big bag that says the newspaper name placing plastic wrapped papers on door steps. I guess she thought I was a terrorist.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Does it matter what the truth is now? That guy who created the Nerdist got hit with allegations and it never even hit a court room. He lost the panel he did at a major convention and was removed from his own show. All over allegations made on Twitter. Eventually he got it straitened out when a half dozen women who knew him well countered the allegations and he was partially restored to his previous status but the stigma is still there. His life has been forever changed by the court of public opinion. So unless this guy has lots of good friends ready to take the fight to Twitter and get his reputation restored he's pretty much toxic waste that no media will touch with a ten foot pole.
Let’s cool it with the himpathy. Men have been :):):):):):):)s to women for millennia and now we get some pushback it’s “oh no, his life is ruined”. I know too many women whose lives have been damaged by sexual assault/harassment, my daughter not least among them. Just because a guy is nice to some women doesn’t mean he can’t be a harasser of others. The “some of my best friends are women!” defense.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
it is 2:30 AM and I'm a tad drunk. Had to wind down after getting harassed by the police while subbing a paper route for another carrier. Some old lady called in that I looked suspicious walking around with a big bag that says the newspaper name placing plastic wrapped papers on door steps. I guess she thought I was a terrorist.
Let's not get drunk and post political rants on EN World at 2.30am, hmmm?
 

dnd4vr

Hero
Let’s cool it with the himpathy. Men have been :):):):):):):)s to women for millennia and now we get some pushback it’s “oh no, his life is ruined”. I know too many women whose lives have been damaged by sexual assault/harassment, my daughter not least among them. Just because a guy is nice to some women doesn’t mean he can’t be a harasser of others. The “some of my best friends are women!” defense.
So, because it is a truly horrible thing to do to women, you want it done to men now? Wouldn't it be better to stop doing it to everyone?

Regardless of gender, proving harassment should be done by law, not public opinion and justifiable outrage. It is wrong to blame and do to women, but it is just as wrong to blame and do to men. Everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves and we should not make such things into modern day witch (or warlock) hunts. I know victims as well, on both sides, and "getting some pushback" is never a good thing.

Just something to think about.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
So, because it is a truly horrible thing to do to women, you want it done to men now? Wouldn't it be better to stop doing it to everyone?

Regardless of gender, proving harassment should be done by law, not public opinion and justifiable outrage. It is wrong to blame and do to women, but it is just as wrong to blame and do to men. Everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves and we should not make such things into modern day witch (or warlock) hunts. I know victims as well, on both sides, and "getting some pushback" is never a good thing.

Just something to think about.
Really not wanting to get dragged into a “debate”. Is there a culture of sexual harassment/assault against men? No. Is there against women? Yes. The pushback is part of an effort to change the culture. End of story.
 

dnd4vr

Hero
Really not wanting to get dragged into a “debate”. Is there a culture of sexual harassment/assault against men? No. Is there against women? Yes. The pushback is part of an effort to change the culture. End of story.
True, this is not the place for a debate, but you are woefully ignorant if you honestly think in this modern day world there is not a culture of sexual harassment/assault against men. Disagree if you like, but I have said my piece and will leave it at that.
 

Staffan

Adventurer
Regardless of gender, proving harassment should be done by law, not public opinion and justifiable outrage. It is wrong to blame and do to women, but it is just as wrong to blame and do to men. Everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves and we should not make such things into modern day witch (or warlock) hunts. I know victims as well, on both sides, and "getting some pushback" is never a good thing.

Just something to think about.
Here's the thing. By the very nature of such things, sexual harassment is very hard to prove. It usually happens when the perpetrator and victim are alone, which means it turns into a he-said-she-said thing. And that means there's reasonable doubt, which in turn means it's almost impossible to convict someone of it.

But I'm not a court of law. I can still believe in one of the parties over the other without overwhelming proof. I can definitely do that when there are multiple accusations. And I can then choose not to associate with the alleged perpetrator, or in some cases not spend money on things he has been involved in.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Simple question for men. When you leave your house do you *ever* think about how you will avoid, or protect yourself against, sexual assault? I know I don’t and nor do most men. Women do, though, all the time. They can’t avoid the constant sexual harassment, so that’s something they have to live with. That is the culture we live in. What some men deal with is a drop in the ocean. So no, I’m not going to find any equivalence in the situation. At all.
 

Gradine

Archivist
Man, can we please leave the tremendously bad takes in other thread? I used to think “well, if they aren’t convicted in a court of law there’s literally nothing we can do!” was the worst take a rational person could make (there’s at least a logic there, if incredibly myopic); if only I had known how much lower that bar could go.

Look, the standards of proof in criminal law is as high as it is for a reason: the consequences are incredibly severe. You literally lose your freedom. There is no way for any social consequences to come anywhere close to that level of severity, so the idea that the standards of proof should be at the same level is nonsensical. It has nothing to do with the nature of the crime making meeting that high standard incredibly difficult (though it does explain why it continues to be so pervasive, and why survivors of such crimes still face so much stigma for coming forward); and everything to do with the standards of proof to be met for social ostracism are (or at least ought to be) lower than the standards for facing jail time. Is the evidence that has been assembled so far enough to convict him in a court of law? I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. What I do know is that the evidence is pretty damning at this point, and that’s enough for the collective community to take action.

One last thing, before it comes up: the community has a greater responsibility for keeping its vulnerable members safe from predators than it has to rehabilitating predators. This doesn’t mean rehabilitation isn’t possible, just that the only person responsible for that rehabilitation is the perpetrator themselves.
 

gyor

Hero
Let’s cool it with the himpathy. Men have been :):):):):):):)s to women for millennia and now we get some pushback it’s “oh no, his life is ruined”. I know too many women whose lives have been damaged by sexual assault/harassment, my daughter not least among them. Just because a guy is nice to some women doesn’t mean he can’t be a harasser of others. The “some of my best friends are women!” defense.
Himpathy?!? WTF. Do you really have to make everything into a gendered insult, even basic human compassion?
 
Let’s cool it with the himpathy. Men have been :):):):):):):)s to women for millennia and now we get some pushback it’s “oh no, his life is ruined”. I know too many women whose lives have been damaged by sexual assault/harassment, my daughter not least among them. Just because a guy is nice to some women doesn’t mean he can’t be a harasser of others. The “some of my best friends are women!” defense.
Himpathy? You even have a fake word now. How cute. Point is whatever the truth is doesn't matter. Twitter has already found him guilty. His life is over. I get that you think women never lie about anything. How adorable.
 
Simple question for men. When you leave your house do you *ever* think about how you will avoid, or protect yourself against, sexual assault? I know I don’t and nor do most men. Women do, though, all the time. They can’t avoid the constant sexual harassment, so that’s something they have to live with. That is the culture we live in. What some men deal with is a drop in the ocean. So no, I’m not going to find any equivalence in the situation. At all.
So since women have to think differently about assault men have to be thought guilty until proven innocent. The entire system of common law has to change because some guys are turds. Good plan.
 

gyor

Hero
Simple question for men. When you leave your house do you *ever* think about how you will avoid, or protect yourself against, sexual assault? I know I don’t and nor do most men. Women do, though, all the time. They can’t avoid the constant sexual harassment, so that’s something they have to live with. That is the culture we live in. What some men deal with is a drop in the ocean. So no, I’m not going to find any equivalence in the situation. At all.
If you actually look at the research men are far more likely to be the victims of violence then women, and stranger based sexual assault is the least common form of sexual assault.

But we taught women to be afraid all the time, even when it's irrational to be so based actual evidence. That is the true injustice women face.

I'm more likely to be murdered then a woman, a lot more likely, but do I spend my time worrying about it? No, because it's unlikely, this isn't a war torn nation.
 

gyor

Hero
Man, can we please leave the tremendously bad takes in other thread? I used to think “well, if they aren’t convicted in a court of law there’s literally nothing we can do!” was the worst take a rational person could make (there’s at least a logic there, if incredibly myopic); if only I had known how much lower that bar could go.

Look, the standards of proof in criminal law is as high as it is for a reason: the consequences are incredibly severe. You literally lose your freedom. There is no way for any social consequences to come anywhere close to that level of severity, so the idea that the standards of proof should be at the same level is nonsensical. It has nothing to do with the nature of the crime making meeting that high standard incredibly difficult (though it does explain why it continues to be so pervasive, and why survivors of such crimes still face so much stigma for coming forward); and everything to do with the standards of proof to be met for social ostracism are (or at least ought to be) lower than the standards for facing jail time. Is the evidence that has been assembled so far enough to convict him in a court of law? I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. What I do know is that the evidence is pretty damning at this point, and that’s enough for the collective community to take action.

One last thing, before it comes up: the community has a greater responsibility for keeping its vulnerable members safe from predators than it has to rehabilitating predators. This doesn’t mean rehabilitation isn’t possible, just that the only person responsible for that rehabilitation is the perpetrator themselves.
Having you rep shredded by #Metoo has lead to suicides, so the stakes are high in and out if court, but at least courts have rules and the accused have rights.
 
ITT: people who don't realize that beyond-a-reasonable-doubt only applies to criminal cases, and for good reason. Ourentire world would grind to a halt overnight if everything suddenly had to be ruthlessly cross-examined and scrutinized for the tiniest detail. Hell, civil cases use balance of probabilities 50+1 to determine whether or not the plaintiff has to cough up the dough. So yeah, choke on your "proof", or shove it up your :):):):):):):). Take your pick.

Here's the thing. By the very nature of such things, sexual harassment is very hard to prove. It usually happens when the perpetrator and victim are alone, which means it turns into a he-said-she-said thing. And that means there's reasonable doubt, which in turn means it's almost impossible to convict someone of it.

But I'm not a court of law. I can still believe in one of the parties over the other without overwhelming proof. I can definitely do that when there are multiple accusations. And I can then choose not to associate with the alleged perpetrator, or in some cases not spend money on things he has been involved in.
This. And considering more and more evidence is magerializing against Projared, I'm not inclined to give hom the benefit of the doubt.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Himpathy?!? WTF. Do you really have to make everything into a gendered insult, even basic human compassion?
It’s actually a neologism (language evolves, who knew?!) to describe exactly what Scott was doing:

The Cornell philosophy professor Kate Manne has now given us the term himpathy, which she has defined as “the inappropriate and disproportionate sympathy powerful men often enjoy in cases of sexual assault, intimate partner violence, homicide and other misogynistic behavior.”

To move from sympathy (or empathy) to himpathy is something else, too: to share a feeling of supportive bonding with a male individual, usually in a powerful position, and through him with the fragile, endangered male sex.
While the quote is from somewhere else, there’s more here if you’re interested: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-himpathy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Advertisement

Top