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

[PHATsakk43]

Much as I would hope otherwise (that people could "get it") I don't think the general marker (even the general gaming market) could handle literature where the humans lose significantly, or worse, are shown to be the bad guys.

I mean, Harry Potter is pretty close to this. "Muggles" aren't really looked upon in a particularly good light. One could make a relatively decent argument that humans aren't portrayed very well in Tolkien's works either, granted, he was basing human frailty of conviction and morals upon the Judeo-Christian framing in the Bible.

That isn't the kind of thing I have been speaking to (I'm talking more about people not finding evil orcs racist, thinking slavery in D&D is okay, not seeing a given image as problematic or not seeing D&D as filled with colonialist tropes)

I still run my games in this manner, however, I do keep it in mind how similar the colonialist tropes are to the way we treat a lot of NPC "monster" races as well as the often overtly racist and eugenicist ideas in a lot of the Appendix N fiction that the tropes of the game are based.

Here's the other thing about speech that rarely gets brought up. If you own a platform where speech happens, then your ability to control what speech is and is not allowed on that platform is a part of your own freedom of speech.

Like, if you own a store, choosing what to sell and what not to sell is absolutely an exercise of your freedom of speech.

So, here is where something Snarf brought up about his (I'm assuming Snarf is a he) post about free speech absolutism but didn't really elaborate upon.

We've really enabled speech to be unevenly distributed as we've conflated how much you're willing to pay for your megaphone to be part of the right to speak into it (this is the basis of the Citizens United verdict.) Also, we've allowed for a significant amount of moral hazard in social media companies, as the owners have found that forcing people to engage with speech they don't particularly like or agree with to engage more, q.v. the last 20 or so pages of this thread.

 

[Hussar]

who take views that are slightly outside our own views

"slightly"? Seriously?

 

[Bedrockgames]

"slightly"? Seriously?

Yes. Absolutely. I see people getting attacked all the time for agreeing with someone about most of the argument but disagreeing over a sliver

 

[Azzy]

So, when folks are upset that "people" can't create sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/bigoted content because they will be attacked for their "differences in opinion", it's always important to recognize that nine times out of ten when they say "differences in opinion" they mean bigotry and when they say "people" they're talking about themselves.

A hit dog hollers, as they say.

 

[Azzy]

That doesn't mean people can't still evaluate harm. I mean sometimes people mistake a scratch for a deep cut.

Tell marginalized people how bad they've been hurt is the height of hubris. You don't get a say in that.

Sometimes people perceive an attack when none was intended.

It doesn't matter what's intended—harm is harm. Even if you don't mean to shoot someone in the face, you still did.

I certainly think the perspective of someone impacted, matters and should be a part of the conversation. But like I have said before, we don't check our brains at the door because of these things. We don't give people total control of the conversation in that way (it isn't good for them or for anyone else)

That's a very priviledged standpoint.

 

[Hussar]

People should use their judgement and common sense. And the key is to not overreact in your response to the overreaction

Well, let's be a bit more precise shall we?

When someone says, "I don't think the depiction of orcs is so bad" how should that be responded to? What are we allowed to say? Can we point to the concrete evidence of the parallels of orc descriptions and real world descriptions? Are we allowed to talk about the Orcs of Thar? Are we allowed to demonstrate repeatedly how the descriptions of orcs in genre fiction has all sorts of analogous parallels?

And when all that is swept under the carpet with, "Oh, it's all just make believe", what is the approved response?

I mean, you keep telling us that we should not "over react" or should be more polite or whatever, but, you absolutely refuse to be specific.

Again, we're talking about a unknown number of creatives (a few, many, three? Who knows?) being repressed somehow by an unknown number of "online mobs" who are only vaguely defined and what constitutes an over reaction is left completely undefined with "common sense" being the standard.

On the other hand, we have mountains of evidence that changes in the community standards has had a incredibly positive impact - massive growth in the hobby, massive growth in products and creativity. So, again, if the hobby has lost things like Dark Sun and Book of Vile Darkness, but has gained a hundred new settings and thousands of new players, how is that not a net positive?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Tell marginalized people how bad they've been hurt is the height of hubris. You don't get a say in that.

In life there are reasonable reactions to things and unreasonable ones. I have a disability. I can still overreact if I feel like someone said something insensitive. I don't get total control of the conversation, and no one should ever get that kind of control of the conversation. That said, the perspective of people who are most impacted, certainly matters, like I said before. But we still need to be able to evaluate what we think is reasonable in this respect. If someone says something that clearly isn't hurtful and a person reacts as if it is, I think we have a responsibility to help that person understand what the reality is

It doesn't matter what's intended—harm is harm. Even if you don't mean to shoot someone in the face, you still did.

Intentions still matter. And I think using this blanket term harm isn't useful. Hurt, insulted, etc. Fine. But harm I think suggests you have done actual bodily harm to a person or somehow impacted their life. If we are talking about a depiction of an orc in a book. I don't think that rises to the level of harm (though it could rise to the level of immature, insulting, offensive, etc).

That's a very priviledged standpoint.

No it really isn't. It is a reasonable position that allows for actual discussion. Blocking people from weighing in on a discussion because of their identity (especially an identity they have no power over) doesn't help anyone or make anything better. All you are going to do is generate resentment and prevent people from saying what is on their mind

 

[Hussar]

Yes. Absolutely. I see people getting attacked all the time for agreeing with someone about most of the argument but disagreeing over a sliver

Y'know, it would REALLY help if you stopped talking about these nebulous "others" that you keep seeing and instead only speak for yourself. Because it's impossible to actually have any sort of real conversation when you can just keep dropping vague allegations and allusions without bothering to post anything of substance.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, let's be a bit more precise shall we?

When someone says, "I don't think the depiction of orcs is so bad" how should that be responded to? What are we allowed to say? Can we point to the concrete evidence of the parallels of orc descriptions and real world descriptions? Are we allowed to talk about the Orcs of Thar? Are we allowed to demonstrate repeatedly how the descriptions of orcs in genre fiction has all sorts of analogous parallels?

You are allowed to talk about whatever you want, as long as you understand people are entitled to have different opinions than you on it. And you can demonstrate all you want, but you also have to understand not everyone is going to agree with your conclusions about the evidence because we are discussing art and that is subjective.

But I am saying I think if you are then going after that person, dehumanizing them, labeling them things they aren't, or trying to impact their lives in a negative way outside the discussion, then that is a problem.

And when all that is swept under the carpet with, "Oh, it's all just make believe", what is the approved response?

I mean, you keep telling us that we should not "over react" or should be more polite or whatever, but, you absolutely refuse to be specific.

Again, don't call people things they aren't. Maybe think about being nice to people in threads even if they disagree with you. Maybe be little charitable in how you interpret peoples posts. And definitely don't ostracize or publicly shame people

Again, we're talking about a unknown number of creatives (a few, many, three? Who knows?) being repressed somehow by an unknown number of "online mobs" who are only vaguely defined and what constitutes an over reaction is left completely undefined with "common sense" being the standard.

I think people don't realize how much of an issue this is when you get away from forums like this one

On the other hand, we have mountains of evidence that changes in the community standards has had a incredibly positive impact - massive growth in the hobby, massive growth in products and creativity. So, again, if the hobby has lost things like Dark Sun and Book of Vile Darkness, but has gained a hundred new settings and thousands of new players, how is that not a net positive?

Again, this is a false choice. You can be welcoming, but not be a jerk about it, you can be welcoming, but also not embrace misguided approaches, you can be welcoming, and yet still have things like Dark Sun (because there isn't anything unwelcoming about Dark Sun)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Y'know, it would REALLY help if you stopped talking about these nebulous "others" that you keep seeing and instead only speak for yourself. Because it's impossible to actually have any sort of real conversation when you can just keep dropping vague allegations and allusions without bothering to post anything of substance.

Hussar, I feel I have been posting very substantively. I think the things I am alluding to are widely known. I think a lot of people are in denial about how common these things have been in the past ten years. But again we have been turning a corner the past few years. I hope things keep improving