Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Harassment in gaming
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6881450" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>This is Kafkaesque. "You cannot be upset or speak against the inherent accusation of wrongdoing because, by doing so, you are aiding the continued perpetration of that wrongdoing." The attempt here is to create a binary choice -- either shut up about inflammatory language you disagree with (and that is frankly cancerous, more on this in a minute), or become a de facto accomplice to horrid behavior. It relies upon painting a situation where the reader will kneejerk away from the concept of being an accomplice to behavior they find horrible so that they will accept general guilt and culpability - in this case membership in a group with a terrorism problem. It's set up so that it hides the fact that you can reject the argument altogether and not accept culpability for acts you did not commit. I neither have to stop pointing out that inflammatory language is inflammatory, nor do I have to accept that I am part of the problem you've painted. I do not harass, I do tolerate harassment, and I agree with the concept and execution of reasonable harassment policies. I also think that saying things like 'white male terrorism' is counterproductive and cancerous to continuing to reduce harassment. I do not have to fall into your binary.</p><p></p><p>And accepting that kind of language is cancerous on two fronts. Firstly, if you do fall into the kafkatrap above, you are either marginalized in the discussion by falling silent to avoid the opprobrium or you internalize the flawed logic and begin to use the same kafkatrap on others. Thus, more and more people are exposed to it and it's flawed statement of guilt (and, make no mistake, any choice within the fallacy applies guilt -- you either accept that you're guilty as a member of the group or you have guilt thrust upon you for being complicit if you fail to accept the group guilt). And that's just messed up and unhealthy. There are other ways to approach and deal with the problem to do not require people to accept that they have guilt as a member of a class of people.</p><p></p><p>The second front is that it internalizes the exact behavior that's meant to be addressed at the core of the effort. If you're aiming to end sexism, racism, gender harassment, etc., then allowing sexist, racist, gender harassing inflammatory language to be defended because it's coming from the movement is cancerous. That's a deep, dark, malignant cancer that you're allowing close into the heart of the effort. People that do that are have either accepted the guilt already or are making an effort to instill a new form of -archy and privilege that favors them. It's possible to approach the problem from a respect point of view for everyone and not malign with generalizations and stereotypes. It's even possible to do that AND acknowledge that the harassment is mostly one-way right now. In fact, I think it's critical to do so to build a base that won't allow the harassment to switch direction if the minority group becomes the majority. Process matters, means matter, and ignoring bad behavior because it's aimed generally at your desired goal is counterproductive.</p><p></p><p>And, finally, will you please stop misusing the tone argument fallacy? The proper form of the tone argument is dismissing an entire argument because of the manner in which it's stated. No one has done that. Instead, everyone seems pretty on-board with the idea of stopping harassment and that the things related in the article are not acceptable. The argument hasn't been dismissed based on the words used or the tone of the argument. Thus, no tone argument fallacy. Instead, what's happened is that people have taken specific issue with the specific terms used, and, make no mistake, those terms are heavily laden with lots of meaning. And they've taken issues specifically, and not to the detriment or dismissal of the larger issue. You can claim that's a distraction -- that's a fine argument, if you're ends oriented, but it's not the tone argument fallacy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 6881450, member: 16814"] This is Kafkaesque. "You cannot be upset or speak against the inherent accusation of wrongdoing because, by doing so, you are aiding the continued perpetration of that wrongdoing." The attempt here is to create a binary choice -- either shut up about inflammatory language you disagree with (and that is frankly cancerous, more on this in a minute), or become a de facto accomplice to horrid behavior. It relies upon painting a situation where the reader will kneejerk away from the concept of being an accomplice to behavior they find horrible so that they will accept general guilt and culpability - in this case membership in a group with a terrorism problem. It's set up so that it hides the fact that you can reject the argument altogether and not accept culpability for acts you did not commit. I neither have to stop pointing out that inflammatory language is inflammatory, nor do I have to accept that I am part of the problem you've painted. I do not harass, I do tolerate harassment, and I agree with the concept and execution of reasonable harassment policies. I also think that saying things like 'white male terrorism' is counterproductive and cancerous to continuing to reduce harassment. I do not have to fall into your binary. And accepting that kind of language is cancerous on two fronts. Firstly, if you do fall into the kafkatrap above, you are either marginalized in the discussion by falling silent to avoid the opprobrium or you internalize the flawed logic and begin to use the same kafkatrap on others. Thus, more and more people are exposed to it and it's flawed statement of guilt (and, make no mistake, any choice within the fallacy applies guilt -- you either accept that you're guilty as a member of the group or you have guilt thrust upon you for being complicit if you fail to accept the group guilt). And that's just messed up and unhealthy. There are other ways to approach and deal with the problem to do not require people to accept that they have guilt as a member of a class of people. The second front is that it internalizes the exact behavior that's meant to be addressed at the core of the effort. If you're aiming to end sexism, racism, gender harassment, etc., then allowing sexist, racist, gender harassing inflammatory language to be defended because it's coming from the movement is cancerous. That's a deep, dark, malignant cancer that you're allowing close into the heart of the effort. People that do that are have either accepted the guilt already or are making an effort to instill a new form of -archy and privilege that favors them. It's possible to approach the problem from a respect point of view for everyone and not malign with generalizations and stereotypes. It's even possible to do that AND acknowledge that the harassment is mostly one-way right now. In fact, I think it's critical to do so to build a base that won't allow the harassment to switch direction if the minority group becomes the majority. Process matters, means matter, and ignoring bad behavior because it's aimed generally at your desired goal is counterproductive. And, finally, will you please stop misusing the tone argument fallacy? The proper form of the tone argument is dismissing an entire argument because of the manner in which it's stated. No one has done that. Instead, everyone seems pretty on-board with the idea of stopping harassment and that the things related in the article are not acceptable. The argument hasn't been dismissed based on the words used or the tone of the argument. Thus, no tone argument fallacy. Instead, what's happened is that people have taken specific issue with the specific terms used, and, make no mistake, those terms are heavily laden with lots of meaning. And they've taken issues specifically, and not to the detriment or dismissal of the larger issue. You can claim that's a distraction -- that's a fine argument, if you're ends oriented, but it's not the tone argument fallacy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Harassment in gaming
Top