D&D 5E Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro

[FrogReaver]

Not going to get into specifics here because of board rules. But your first thing is not really relevant here.

An apologist is someone who is trying to defend something regardless of the morality of what they are defending.

If you mean an apologist can defend something either moral or immoral. I agree.

But that undermines your initial definition that ‘ An apologist is someone who will defend the actions of someone or something that is obviously in the wrong.’

And I’d point out that the many difficulties you have run into on these boards in these types of discussions have a lot to do with your idiosyncratic approach to the definitions of words.

Go read all the dictionaries. Nothing about the word necessitates the immortality of the thing being defended, which is what your original comment defined the word as.

Look. You seem to be backing away from your original definitional claim, so I’m going to give you space to do that and not hold your feat to the fire.

 

[Hussar]

If you mean an apologist can defend something either moral or immoral. I agree.

But that undermines your initial definition that ‘ An apologist is someone who will defend the actions of someone or something that is obviously in the wrong.’



Go read all the dictionaries. Nothing about the word necessitates the immortality of the thing being defended, which is what your original comment defined the word as.

Look. You seem to be backing away from your original definitional claim, so I’m going to give you space to do that and not hold your feat to the fire.

I assume you mean immorality.

An apologist is someone who defends a immoral (for a given value of immoral) act or action by someone or something. That's the definition of an apologist. It's a very negative word. I really don't care to play dueling definitions with you. The word was used in a very negative way, in this thread to the point where it actually drew moderation for using the term.

I'm not backing away from anything. Calling someone an appolgist for WotC is obviously using the most perjoritive connotation of the term. That you can play silly bugger semantic games notwithstanding.

 

[FrogReaver]

I assume you mean immorality.

An apologist is someone who defends an immoral (for a given value of immoral) act or action by someone or something.

Then thats an incorrect definition and one you can’t find any major dictionary agreeing with.

It's a very negative word. I really don't care to play dueling definitions with you.

Then don’t. But seriously at least check out the dictionaries in this instance.

I'm not backing away from anything.

I mean if you are now saying an apologist can defend something moral then to me that’s a backdown from the original claim.

Calling someone an appolgist for WotC is obviously using the most perjoritive connotation of the term.

So I agree that a person can use the to mean something like ‘you shouldn’t be listened to because you’ll defend anything’. That’s certainly one modern pejorative connotation.

That you can play silly bugger semantic games notwithstanding.

It’s not a silly semantic game.

Here’s why it matters to me. Because if you are saying apologists only defend the immoral then you are lumping any faith based apologist as defending the immoral, implying that all faiths are immoral. I don’t think that’s your intention, but it’s the consequence of your definition, which I’m sure you can see why that would be important and matter.

 

[Hussar]

Then thats an incorrect definition and one you can’t find any major dictionary agreeing with.



Then don’t. But seriously at least check out the dictionaries in this instance.


I mean if you are now saying an apologist can defend something moral then to me that’s a backdown from the original claim.



So I agree that a person can use the to mean something like ‘you shouldn’t be listened to because you’ll defend anything’. That’s certainly one modern pejorative connotation.



It’s not a silly semantic game.

Here’s why it matters to me. Because if you are saying apologists only defend the immoral then you are lumping any faith based apologist as defending the immoral, implying that all faiths are immoral. I don’t think that’s your intention, but it’s the consequence of your definition, which I’m sure you can see why that would be important and matter.

Sorry, @FrogReaver. Two things. 1. I refuse to respond to fisking where you break down my very short response to line by line. I cannot and will not read it. 2. I refuse to get into silly sematic debates. The point I made was very clear and easy to understand. You want to debate definitions, rather than anything of actual substance, so, again, I will not discuss this with you.

 

[TheSword]

if you want to belittle the actual ones, go right ahead, you do not need to make up issues. If anything it undermines your point, and you defending it is not helping yours, at least from my perspective

If you want to combat misinformation then do not only combat anti-WotC one but also pro-WotC one, otherwise I cannot take your effort as serious / about combating it

I had made the point that changing things is as much a risk as creating new things and AIViking was specifically responding to the person who claimed WotC didn’t offend anyone by changing things. I thought he was pretty on point. It wasn’t misinformation it wasn’t belittling anything. It was putting the last two years beefs in the context of the previous two decades.

Just to be clear, I’m saying that an issue that is rectified within a couple of days, week at most is not the scandal you think it is and that it’s not anything for people to get bent out of shape about. That’s not misinformation it’s my opinion.

 

[mamba]

I had made the point that changing things is as much a risk as creating new things

and so is not changing things and risking to get stale

AIViking was specifically responding to the person who claimed WotC didn’t offend anyone by changing things.

nothing they do will have no one disagreeing with it, but we also understand that that is impossible to achieve. That is why it was not brought up as one of the missteps.

It wasn’t misinformation it wasn’t belittling anything. It was putting the last two years beefs in the context of the previous two decades.

that in itself is belittling, by leaving out other issues from those two decades and focusing on things no one considered controversial and then saying / implying ‘and all the things you brought up are just like that’. If they were, then how come they were not brought up as well…

I am not even sure they did anything as offensive as the OGL in the 20 years before that, so even if that statement were correct it means little for what happened in the last two. The OGL was not even on that list however as that just included the last 6 months or so

Just to be clear, I’m saying that an issue that is rectified within a couple of days, week at most is not the scandal you think it is and that it’s not anything for people to get bent out of shape about

and just to be clear, I am saying that this is not for you to decide, everyone can decide that for themselves

That’s not misinformation it’s my opinion.

that isn’t, it also is not what I referred to. I said your claim that there was nothing whatsoever anyone could have an issue with the last two years was wrong (not even misinformation) and the 2024 changes as misinformation when it comes to the issues that were brought up as things where WotC got some negative publicity

 

[AlViking]

you brought them up here, and I have not seen any outrage about those.

Do all people like all changes, no, but that is the norm and everyone understands it. Which incidentally also is why no one here considered them an issue

I was responding to a post that had nothing to do with you about whether or not wizards ever takes any risks that I disagreed with. I gave examples of risks they've taken with every revision and that not changing something is its own type of risk. Your umbrage that I didn't also mention issues that were either quickly reversed in the case of the OGL or from what I can tell mostly fabricated is all on you because those have nothing to do with my post. Now you're spinning this into a couple of pages of argument with motivation that I can only attribute to argument for the sake of argument. Discuss what is happening with the hobby and we can have a conversation but your response had nothing to do with what I said. Adieu.

 

[TheSword]

That in itself is belittling, by leaving out other issues from those two decades and focusing on things no one considered controversial and then saying / implying ‘and all the things you brought up are just like that’. If they were, then how come they were not brought up as well…

Sorry, who is being belittled here? The listed issues were massive at the time and were all across the boards. Some of them were far more substantial than some of things on the recent list.

I am not even sure they did anything as offensive as the OGL in the 20 years before that, so even if that statement were correct it means little for what happened in the last two. The OGL was not even on that list however as that just included the last 6 months or so

I specifically didn’t include the OGL and said ‘since the OGL’. We all know the OGL was a substantial change. Overblown in my opinion but I recognize it was a major upset.

and just to be clear, I am saying that this is not for you to decide, everyone can decide that for themselves

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Some people making hay out of this tend to ignore the corrective part of the outcome though which ought to be the most important bit. The copyright strike was removed, the 5e options were added to beyond. The page spreads were authorized. Surely the outcome matters? Or is it just the controversy that folks are chasing?

I said your claim that there was nothing whatsoever anyone could have an issue with the last two years as wrong (not even misinformation) and the 2024 changes as misinformation when it comes to the issues that were brought up as things where WotC got some negative publicity

Sorry I don’t follow this sentence.

 

[Retreater]

Philosophy: the art of arguing over the finer points of academic interests that has solved nothing since its invention in 2000 BCE.

 

[TheSword]

Philosophy: the art of arguing over the finer points of academic interests that has solved nothing since its invention in 2000 BCE.

I don’t know. Stoics have helped me immensely when navigating the boards