It also doesn't simply mean something based on ideas but ideals and it has strong connotations of political ideology. Either way, I meant it as the common used meaning.
I don't think we want to get bound up in arguing over definitions though. The idea that music can make people happy, that the color yellow is associated with an emotion, I don't think of that as ideological in the common sense of the word, but more importantly it isn't what I meant when I used the word. I mean art that is a slave to ideological such as at that is used to promote patriotism, used to promote communist ideas, art that is used to advocate for a particular system of government, used to fight for a particular social issue or moral value. That is different from art whose aim is more universal or just specific about the subject (i.e. trying to evoke emotion, trying to examine something that happened to the creator through a work of art, etc).
But here is the definition:
- based on or relating to a system of ideas and ideals, especially concerning economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideological struggle that underpinned the cold war"
"especially" not "exclusively".
But sure, if you want to say that art can be more than political propaganda, I'll agree. But you also want to say that deciding NOT to include racism is ideological, but seem to be ignoring the fact that INCLUDING racism is ideological as well. So it begins to feel like "Doing it is fine, as long as you aren't explicit, but protesting it isn't fine"
I am not going to single people out here and make them potential targets of the conversation but this is definitely happening with designers.
I don't want to make them targets either, but I've never heard of a single designer talking about this. So how am I supposed to take this idea that everyone is struggling in this new environment when I have no examples of anyone struggling with it?
Yes, in case people didn't know most game designers are are not making much doing this. And neither are most publishers. So yes it can mean the difference between paying the bills and not paying the bills. And a lot of companies are getting their investment for each book from a very narrow revenue stream, so if the book fails, it can be catastrophic or too cost prohibitive to alter. Of course there is kickstarter, but then the book was made using other peoples money and I think that is a very different situation.
Which is why many of them have day jobs. But, you seemed to have missed my point. Yes, for many of them each book is on a razor's edge... so they think about what the audience wants and worry about making a sub-par product. That's normal. And if part of quality control is now "is this racist" well, I'd much prefer that over to no one caring whether or not a product is racist. Seems we spent an awful long time as a society being okay with dehumanizing others, and I'm glad we are starting to say "hey, maybe we shouldn't be okay with that."
I am not talking about being a perfectionist, I am talking about the way the present cultural climate in gaming and online criticism of gaming gets into designers heads, and how it can even result in cancelation, ruining their personal lives, etc if they get things "wrong". Obviously we disagree that this is even happening but I think anyone who has participated in the hobby knows that is. Anyone who has been on the receiving end in the past five years understands how much more nefarious and cruel it has become
Also I would argue pressures to be perfect can reach unhealthy levels. But that is another topic, and something you see more in other areas of expression right now (like music, for example). But again another topic really
No. I don't think that "anyone" who has participated in the hobby has found criticism to have become more nefarious and cruel, compared to lying on the national news about a suicidal kid to blame a game that had nothing to do with his disappearance. Or making a full length movie, based on a novel, about the evils of gaming.
When I was in 5th grade, we had a computer project to make a slideshow. I decided to make one on my favorite game. I put Dungeons and Dragons into google. First result was Jack Chick's Dark Dungeon, featuring a cult, book burnings, and suicide. So, if I compare "anyone who likes this game is being led by dark forces to kill themselves and we must destroy this evil!" to "Hey. is this racist? This looks kind of racist to me." No, I don't think it has become crueler and more nefarious.
The internet is definitely the big factor here. But the internet has always been around.
Factually false. I've grown up in this era. I can tell you there is a big difference between dial-up and small chat rooms and modern twitter. It isn't even a competition
Something has changed considerably in the past 5 years (maybe more it is hard to track time as you get older). The conversations have become much more zero sum, more hostile, more cruel even. And the level of criticism so much more intense (to where it usually becomes personal). I think most designers care what people think, otherwise they wouldn't put stuff out there. But the social climate you release things into matters. And the problem with the current social climate is the only way to function healthily in it is not to care what people think, which is extremely counter productive. I've learned to turn this stuff into white noise because it feels like lose-lose. And I know a lot of others have. But that isn't a great state for the hobby to be in.
Maybe people have just gotten sick of the same things, all the time? I mean, none of the things we are talking about are difficult to actually do, we've seen other companies and groups do them, but we get accused of ruining everything because we can't just ignore the flaws anymore.
And they are flaws. We've already demonstrated, you don't NEED racism to make good stories. You don't NEED racism to make compelling worlds. Just like you don't need sexism, and you don't need ageism. We can make core books, our default handed to children, not simply assume the world must be a terrible place.
I think there is a few things here so let me clearly state my impression of your position. I think over the course of the conversation it seems to me you want certain parameters established on what is acceptable in RPG design in order to make people feel more welcome, particularly in WOTC products, and specifically the PHB (to be clear I don't think you are calling on any rules or asking for social media mobs, you are just hoping that enough people make the case you are making that it persuades publishers to act). If I am wrong, certainly tell me so. I don't think you are out in the streets demanding books come off shelves or ripping pages from them. I would say I see your position as a much more gray area than someone calling for books to be taken off a shelf. But I think your ideas are venturing into censorious territory, or at least the kinds of ideas that are creating a chilling effect. Don't think that makes you a bad person, because I think your reasons for wanting certain things to be dropped from the game are to make other people feel welcome (and that is a value I can agree with, even if I make a different calculation about how best to do that and how best to balance that with other values). In fairness you probably think my ideas are making people feel less welcome (and clearly I wouldn't agree with that, but I think those are the two values right now we are struggling with: free expression and the need to make people feel more welcome)
See, this is really strange to me. No one in this thread, no one I've seen in any thread on this entire site, has talked about ripping pages from books. So... why are we bringing that up? No one has demanded (for reasons of racist depictions) for books to be removed from shelves.
And yet, if we are to assume that is the "dark" version, I'm simply in the grey. Which means that if I wanted to be a white hat... I'd say nothing should be discussed or critiqued ever? After all, even something like critiquing a plot hole could be "censorious" if enough people agree, it could force the author to change their vision. It could force them to agonize over every little detail of their story, to see if they made any "mistakes".
And, in the end, absolute free expression, without any hint of censorship, is clearly too far. Because if you aren't allowed to say "I disagree, I find this wrong" then everyone will be left in echo chambers, where the only thing they hear is either agreement or silence.
That said, my post was trying to make an important distinction: there is a broader movement in our culture that is about thing like taking greater care in our use of language, media tropes, etc out of a belief this will improve society and protect marginalized people (this doesn't capture everything, it isn't a definition, but I think people get what what it describes).
Right. And other than "but my poor author's creative vision!" is there anything actually wrong with that? Is there anything wrong with saying "You know, this habit we have of depicting young women as beautiful, passive prizes to be won is causing issues with young men thinking women are passive prizes to be won.... maybe we should do better?"
I mean, you hit the nail on the head "take greater care". Not cleanse and purify, not perfection. Just take greater care, think through our tropes and assumptions to see if they are still serving a purpose we want to be served. That's.... good. It is critical thinking.
There are also smaller communities this discussion has filtered down to, like the RPG community (and you might even argue it filtered down to the RPG community earlier than others as these conversations started a while ago but only recently really blossomed into what they are now). That distinction is important because you asked me if I thought the ideas you were advancing in this discussion were a threat more broadly to artistic expression, and I don't know enough about you or anyone else participating in this thread, to know how much you are invested in the broader movement (for all I know you think RPGs are a unique case because of their immersive effect or their history of being a mostly white hobby, so you feel extra care should be taken here, but maybe you don't care as much about tropes in a movie for some reason----not saying this is your position, just that I don't want to assume anything about your position.
Nothing happening in the the RPG discussion is going to impact what they do in a movie. People advocating for change in the hobby may also be advocating for change outside the hobby in the broader culture, so I am sure there is cross over, but I don't think they are identical.
So why do you continuously bring up the threat to the greater culture? It would be like having a meeting to discuss changing the menu at a restaurant, and someone continuously bringing up how fusion cuisine is destroying cultural identity. Like... does that even apply? Are we really going to base our decision on whether or not to have a shrimp taco on the menu on the idea that the French identity is under assault by the blending of cultural foods? There is sort of a connecting line, but the two ideas are so far apart that continuously tugging on that line seems like intentionally trying to bridge that distance.
Also I am trying to be very careful here, and not trying to use weasel words, because I don't want to level an accusation against you simply for disagreeing with me about media tropes. So while I am concerned about the movement, I am not interested in blaming individuals who believe in the movement (particularly since I think they are coming from a good place). I don't think anyone is striving for censorship, I don't think anyone sees that as the goal. I think it is more a case of an idea that seems good and sounds nice, inadvertently leading us there. And I would much rather engage with people than right them off as censors. So if I seem like I am equivocating at all, I do apologize but it is because I don't want to veer from debating your ideas into debating you as a person. That is also why when I restated what I thought your position was above, I asked for you to tell me if I am wrong because I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Right, so it is all the slippery slope fallacy. No one is intending harm, no one is advocating for harm, no one is planning harm.... but inevitably you will do harm, because these ideas will not stop here, but barrel on forward until great harm is done.
And, I hate to remind you, but it is called a fallacy for a reason.
