WotC Dungeons & Dragons Fans Seek Removal of Oriental Adventures From Online Marketplace

[Snarf Zagyg]

What Aldarc said. You're right that it's capitalism, it's just not only capitalism. A lot of these issues are intersectional -- they tangle up with each other in one giant web.

Yes, kind of. None of this is particularly ... new. It's like someone running around in the '70s with their dog-eared translation of Roland Barthes' Mythologies explaining that they finally understand that the inherent semitoics of mass media and capitalism reify the ruling power structures in order to hide the base inequities and racism of post-colonialist France.

Every generation will have its own jargon (semitoics, deconstruction, intersectionlity, post-structualism) to review and critique the same issues, with the curious belief that this fresh approach has any profound difference than what came before.

In the end, the actual change comes not from the change of symbols, but from the change of structures. Not from the critique of Oriental Adventures, but through direct action, engaging locally, and the ballot box.

But what do I know? I'm just an old.

 

[Umbran]

By definition, generalizations are convenient, mutable, and generally harmless, whereas stereotypes are lazy, stubborn, and harmful.

"Circular logic: see logic, circular."

Stereotypes are bad.
Why?
Because if it is bad, we put it in the stereotype bucket.
Well, what made it bad?
The fact that it was in the bucket!
Why did you put it in that bucket?
Because it was a stereotype, and stereotypes are bad!

The definition is descriptive. The thing must be determined to be bad BEFORE you can say the definition applies. You don't get to invoke the definition as the basis for calling it bad.

So, what is the thing before you realize it is bad and call it a stereotype?

 

[ART!]

"Circular logic: see logic, circular."

Stereotypes are bad.
Why?
Because if it is bad, we put it in the stereotype bucket.
Well, what made it bad?
The fact that it was in the bucket!
Why did you put it in that bucket?
Because it was a stereotype, and stereotypes are bad!

The definition is descriptive. The thing must be determined to be bad BEFORE you can say the definition applies. You don't get to invoke the definition as the basis for calling it bad.

So, what is the thing before you realize it is bad and call it a stereotype?

I guess you're asking if there exists an objective reality and whether it has ethical content or meaning? Or something? I'm not sure, and I'm done discussing this. I don't know how you define things without using definitions. I provided some commonly accepted definitions, for clarity's sake. The end.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I guess you're asking if there exists an objective reality and whether it has ethical content or meaning? Or something? I'm not sure, and I'm done discussing this. I don't know how you define things without using definitions. I provided some commonly accepted definitions, for clarity's sake. The end.

"Californians are surfers." Is that a stereotype, or a generalization?
"Arizona is a desert place filled with cacti." Is that a stereotype, or a generalization?
"People from Maine love hunting." Same.
"Florida man is crazy!" Same.
"Minnesota is cold." Same.

...and so on. The impression I got was that you are using the definition to say what things are bad (stereotpyes), and what aren't (generalizations), as opposed to articulating why the underlying thing itself is bad or not bad.

 

[ART!]

"Californians are surfers." Is that a stereotype, or a generalization?
"Arizona is a desert place filled with cacti." Is that a stereotype, or a generalization?
"People from Maine love hunting." Same.
"Florida man is crazy!" Same.
"Minnesota is cold." Same.

...and so on. The impression I got was that you are using the definition to say what things are bad (stereotpyes), and what aren't (generalizations), as opposed to articulating why the underlying thing itself is bad or not bad.

Not following this at all. If it's a harmful, immutable categorization, then it's a stereotype. That's in the definition. Where's the confusion? I don't care. I'll let someone interested in explaining it do the explaining, as if it hasn't been explained repeatedly in this thread already. I wish them luck. Have fun.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Not following this at all. If it's a harmful, immutable categorization, then it's a stereotype. That's in the definition. Where's the confusion?

There are different definitions, but let's try this one for stereotype. I'm not cherrypicking, I googled "define stereotype."

"a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing."

Notice the differences between this definition and what you just said. There is no "harmful" (although some definitions will state prejudiced or uncritical"). And immutable (cannot change) is different than fixed (which implies hard to change).

People use words all the time, some with good connotations and some with bad connotations. Just in this thread, a few people have discussed the differences between "good" and "bad" stereotypes (and why both might be harmful) and tried to tease out the difference between generalizations and stereotypes - and I am not clear what that is, to you.

But if you don't want to explain it to me, that's cool.

 

[ART!]

There are different definitions, but let's try this one for stereotype. I'm not cherrypicking, I googled "define stereotype."

"a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing."

Notice the differences between this definition and what you just said. There is no "harmful" (although some definitions will state prejudiced or uncritical"). And immutable (cannot change) is different than fixed (which implies hard to change).

People use words all the time, some with good connotations and some with bad connotations. Just in this thread, a few people have discussed the differences between "good" and "bad" stereotypes (and why both might be harmful) and tried to tease out the difference between generalizations and stereotypes - and I am not clear what that is, to you.

But if you don't want to explain it to me, that's cool.

Oh, for the love of...

"Oversimplified" means it too simplified. It is simplified to a degree which is in some way unfavorable, undesirable, etc., i.e. harmful - harming one's ability to understand or deal with a thing, because your thoughts and attitudes about it are oversimplified. Possibly harming others because your attitude misunderstands them and their rights, needs, etc.

Suddenly, we've gone meta*.

This is where I hit the Ignore button, unWatch the thread, and change my notifictaions settings. Congratulations. You win.


*snark intended.

 

[Tallifer]

"Harmful" is an objective term when used to discuss physical injury. Even then you need to define the situation. The doctor cuts open my stomach, but harm is for a beneficial end.

"Harmful" is a completely subjective and relative term when used to discuss a book. There are millions of people who would say that the Bible is a "harmful" book. A scholar can read "Mein Kampf" and come away unharmed.

Of course, we can say that the Necronomicon is objectively harmful.

 

[MoonSong]

Oh, for the love of...

"Oversimplified" means it too simplified. It is simplified to a degree which is in some way unfavorable, undesirable, etc., i.e. harmful - harming one's ability to understand or deal with a thing, because your thoughts and attitudes about it are oversimplified. Possibly harming others because your attitude misunderstands them and their rights, needs, etc.

Suddenly, we've gone meta*.

This is where I hit the Ignore button, unWatch the thread, and change my notifictaions settings. Congratulations. You win.


*snark intended.

Art, but if we are checking definitions:

Definition of oversimplify

transitive verb
: to simplify to such an extent as to bring about distortion, misunderstanding, or error

intransitive verb
: to engage in undue or extreme simplification

I think it is quite a feat to jump from "bring about distortion, misunderstanding or error" to "unfavorable, undesirable" and then "harmful".

 

[Quickleaf]

A little tongue-in-cheek humor to hopefully leave a smile on your face, and maybe be a bit thought-provoking.

Do you guys remember that great Occidental Adventures campaign sourcebook released during the heyday of AD&D? Oh man, that was a great book.

It had Vikings, Charlemagne's Paladins, Arthurian lore woven with Celtic myth, Europe's Elizabethan age, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, the Crusades, even the colonization of North America. Everything I wanted in a sourcebook about the exotic and savage Sunset Lands of the Occident! All in 144 pages. Can you imagine? No need to publish, say, eight 96-page sourcebooks detailing each topic. That would be crazy. It's all in here, covered accurately and sensitively, of course. It's like 700 pages condensed down into gaming goodness, pandering to the stereotypes we know and love, without getting bogged down in any icky nuance.