D&D General Just sweeping dirty dishes under the rug: D&D, Sexism, and the '70s

Status
Not open for further replies.
Except you yourself pointed to how corporate censorship and social pressure were used to stifle the free expression of LBGTQ people for ages. I would say the power that corporations are able to wield over what people say is very much a speech issue (obviously cooperate power goes beyond speech issues into other areas though). If you work for a company and they are able to control what you can say outside the workplace: that is a speech issue. I am not a lawyer, I know I am not going to win a debate with you on this. But in my bones, I know corporations can use their power to stifle free expression

sigh Just think this through. Who would be the entity that made corporations (and people!) provide the speech?

The government. Do you see the problem? So, again, if corporations are too powerful, that's not a speech issue.

(As for my earlier comment I made sure to note that the government suppressed the speech as well, and my point, which you didn't seem to engage with, is that there is more speech, on more platforms, allowing more people to speak than ever. Which, given the comment section of a lot of places and social media ... not an unalloyed blessing. But I will reiterate that while I am concerned about the principle of free speech, the actuality of free speech is greater today than ever.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well, we are moving far afield of the topic. I will just say that (absent other law) the principles of the First Amendment apply only to the government for a very good reason. Speech that offends, provokes, and shocks needs to be protected from the government, but it wouldn't be a very interesting world if speech was protected from other people not liking it- after all, speech can have consequences, and that's one of the reasons it can be so powerful. I wouldn't want a world where private parties (like me and you) were forced to listen to each other without the ability to disapprove of each other's speech. Including by just .... walking away. The original boycott.

I am not saying people should have to listen to speech they don't want. And I am not saying people shouldn't be able to boycott. I am saying people should consider how they wield what power they have in this respect. And we should take careful measure of the health of our culture when it comes to free expression in the arts. The people who protested Piss Christ had every right to do that. And people had a right to boycott Last Temptation of Christ. But I think it was generally bad that there was such cultural force against that kind of expression in the 80s
 

See that's the thing - 25 years ago, we made a big show of fixing things and then... we fixed about 20, 30% of it. It's better sure, but oh boy is there a ways to go!

I too for a while bought into the idea that the problem had been solved. But the older I get, the more sexism I see - not because there is more of it, but because I understand better.
I didn't say it was solved. But you can't change the behavior of people in the past.

What good would it be to bring up your great great grandmother who owned slaves or whatever? No. It would only make you feel bad.

The more useful questions would be, does the 2024 books have sexism?

If so, then make a fuss about it.
If not, congratulate them.
 

sigh Just think this through. Who would be the entity that made corporations (and people!) provide the speech?

The government. Do you see the problem? So, again, if corporations are too powerful, that's not a speech issue.

I just don't think we are going to agree on this issue Snarf, but I don't think there is much headway to make going back and forth on it

(As for my earlier comment I made sure to note that the government suppressed the speech as well, and my point, which you didn't seem to engage with, is that there is more speech, on more platforms, allowing more people to speak than ever. Which, given the comment section of a lot of places and social media ... not an unalloyed blessing. But I will reiterate that while I am concerned about the principle of free speech, the actuality of free speech is greater today than ever.)

I didn't engage this because it felt like it would be taking a detour and it is a topic I need to flesh my thoughts out more. My initial thinking on this is I tend to agree on the one hand there is more speech than ever. There is a lot of good in our ability to communicate due to changes in technology. But the other half of it is, whoever controls the platforms in questions can powerfully shape what speech is permitted, who is able to be attacked and isn't and that can get very messy very quickly. I think most people would acknowledge we have more power to communicate now, and in many ways more freedom of speech. But I think people would also acknowledge that in itself gives more power to social pressures that can chill speech, and it leads to a lot of other unpleasant things that impact peoples willingness to express themselves freely (just taking for example the fear of being an actual target of violence because people online can track you down). I think this is a big topic. I think we are still grappling with what it means for society and free expression (because I think it is hard to say it is a net positive or negative)
 

@Bedrockgames if you're interested, I just posted a brain teaser on the First Amendment.

 


I think the real reason is that Dark Sun sucks.

I feel about Dark Sun the way Snarf does about bards, but far more. In fact, the loathing of the setting is so much that I had to guzzle a good bit of my eggnog stash just to get the motivation to return to this comment section.

WotC knows it’s the worst setting ever devised and is simply using its “problematic” content as a clever ruse to avoid rereleasing that waterless, metal-scarce, psionic, munchkin power fantasy dreck. I mean, it’s basically just cornball edgelord garbage.

Anyway, having to discuss Dark Sun is truly a risk to my liver.

Seriously, if for whatever reasons you want to play in a setting that just sucks, go ride the Dragonlance choo-choo or run Terrible Trouble at Tragidoor. There is no reason to inflict Athas upon yourself.

Also, lots of people run games with well done & complex themes and topics. Many well into the NC-17 spectrum. I run my own games at that level with my friends who are cool with it. And there is plenty of media out there is even farther into stuff that is beyond where my games go, so it isn’t as if you can’t find inspiration in published content, it’s just that Hasbro isn’t going there, because it makes stuff for kids.
 

I think the real reason is that Dark Sun sucks.

I feel about Dark Sun the way Snarf does about bards, but far more. In fact, the loathing of the setting is so much that I had to guzzle a good bit of my eggnog stash just to get the motivation to return to this comment section.

WotC knows it’s the worst setting ever devised and is simply using its “problematic” content as a clever ruse to avoid rereleasing that waterless, metal-scarce, psionic, munchkin power fantasy dreck. I mean, it’s basically just cornball edgelord garbage.

Anyway, having to discuss Dark Sun is truly a risk to my liver.

Seriously, if for whatever reasons you want to play in a setting that just sucks, go ride the Dragonlance choo-choo or run Terrible Trouble at Tragidoor. There is no reason to inflict Athas upon yourself.

Also, lots of people run games with well done & complex themes and topics. Many well into the NC-17 spectrum. I run my own games at that level with my friends who are cool with it. And there is plenty of media out there is even farther into stuff that is beyond where my games go, so it isn’t as if you can’t find inspiration in published content, it’s just that Hasbro isn’t going there, because it makes stuff for kids.

clapping-leonardo-dicaprio.gif
 

"I neither condemn nor condone (insert evil thing here)" is a nonsensical statement.

Because if you do not condemn evil, and you do not condone evil, you simply allow evil to exist unopposed and feign indifference.

Which is exactly the same thing as condoning evil.

Condoning is the act of allowing something bad to continue happening, unopposed.
 

I always find it funny that "free speech" advocates are often so interested in promoting a single kind of speech all the while ignoring the thousands of other areas of speech where we are far, far freer than we ever were. Oh, noes. We can't have a setting that features slavery as a central element, but, heaven forbid that we have two men living together in a module. Fifty years and we have exactly one matriarchy in the Monster Manual and it's a bad caricature of feminism. But, yeah, we've got all this free speech in the past that we don't have now. :erm:

Good grief. People talked about the progressive TV shows of the 80's? You mean things like Dif'rent Strokes? Yup, we got Fresh Prince, but, imagine trying, even today, to make a show where two white orphans are adopted by a single black parent. Good luck with that.

I'm sorry, but on what planet did we have more free speech during the 80's and 90's than we do now?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trending content

Remove ads

Top