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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Again, utter hubris. No you don't get to say what is or isn't harmful to marginalized people. You have no clue.

Intentions still matter.
Only to an extent. It doesn't excuse the harm.
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).
You also don't get to say what constitutes harm to others. The harmed person does. It's that simple.

No it really isn't. It is a reasonable position that allows for actual discussion.
If you want to discuss whether marginalized people should be marginalized, the answer is no. There is nothing to debate.

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.
Blocking? I'm saying that if you don't have a lived experience, you opinion isn't worthwhile. You should be quiet and listen to those that ARE marginalized and try to learn something.
All you are going to do is generate resentment and prevent people from saying what is on their mind
Some thing shouldn't be said, so oh well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sure. Not a business decision that makes sense to me, but whatever. I would do the same for any other setting WotC has (IMO) mangled. Their track record doesn't indicate to me I would be any happier with WotC Dark Sun than I was with WotC Ravenloft or WotC Spelljammer or WotC Dragonlance.

WotC Planescape was pretty much fine.
I didn't buy Planescape, so I wouldn't know.
 

Slavery was definitely treated as an evil thing, but as an entrenched one. The adventure included in the original boxed set starts the PCs out as slaves being transported across the desert. The caravan gets attacked by elf raiders, which leads to the PCs being "freed"... right out in the middle of the desert and barely being able to get a waterskin each from the wreck.

Then you have the first separate adventure, Freedom, where the PCs are enslaved and forced to work on the Ziggurat in Tyr. The picture painted of slavery is not a pretty one. And at the culmination of the adventure, the former king of Tyr is killed (by NPCs), and slavery is abolished in Tyr. And this is the point where it gets a little complicated. Later material, like the Tyr sourcebook, shows that while this is overall good, it is not without its problems. For one thing, you now have a large destitute underclass of former slaves, which is a destabilizing influence. You also have lots of resources (farmland, the iron mines) that are being abandoned because of the lack of workers (and the nobles don't really have the resources to employ their former slaves). You also have other city-states who see what happened in Tyr, and decide that they will not be having any of that, leading to a short-lived war between Tyr and the closest city-state, Urik (with the result being that Tyr defeats Urik in the field, but when they try to follow their success up and attack Urik itself in order to free their slaves as well, Tyr gets soundly routed). So the abolition of slavery is described as a positive, with an asterisk.
Honestly, that seems like a really big asterisk. Almost like they were saying "keep the slavery because getting rid of it causes too many problems." Which is... not a good thing, or what most people would want in a modern edition, I think. It's probably realistic of societies where slavery is suddenly abolished, but it's also one of those strange times where for some reason, realism is required for this but not necessarily for other things.
 

Again, utter hubris. No you don't get to say what is or isn't harmful to marginalized people. You have no clue.


Only to an extent. It doesn't excuse the harm.

You also don't get to say what constitutes harm to others. The harmed person does. It's that simple.


If you want to discuss whether marginalized people should be marginalized, the answer is no. There is nothing to debate.


Blocking? I'm saying that if you don't have a lived experience, you opinion isn't worthwhile. You should be quiet and listen to those that ARE marginalized and try to learn something.

Some thing shouldn't be said, so oh well.
Obviously we disagree. But I think we’ve also stated our positions multiple times and haven’t moved the dial. I just don’t think saying people who don’t have a lived experience must be quiet and listen does anything to help the people you are saying you want to help. And I think it is a terrible way to have a dialogue. People should listen to each other obviously but they still need to evaluate what they are hearing
 

Obviously we disagree. But I think we’ve also stated our positions multiple times and haven’t moved the dial. I just don’t think saying people who don’t have a lived experience must be quiet and listen does anything to help the people you are saying you want to help. And I think it is a terrible way to have a dialogue. People should listen to each other obviously but they still need to evaluate what they are hearing
I'm not going to value of those that espouse the ancient alien "theory" when it comes to serious history, so why would I value the opinions of someone who is also speaking from a position of utter ignorance? No one should enable such ignorance.
 

The "Dialogue":

Marginalized Person: These are the ways that (insert bigotry here) has affected me, negatively.

Majority Person: That never happened to me. So you must be lying.

Marginalized Person: This is proof that it happened.

Majority Person: Then the person who did it to you was uniquely awful.

Marginalized Person: Actually this was a large number of different people in the majority group.

Majority Person: It sounds like you're saying all Majority Members are bad. And -I'm- not. So you must be lying.

Lather, rinse, repeat.
 

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
No. They are not widely known. That's why multiple people have been asking you repeatedly to be specific. Which you have repeatedly refused to do. It's not denial. It's honestly not seeing what you are seeing. And, again, since you steadfastly refuse to provide anything like evidence, it's really hard to continue to be charitable to your position.
 

You got it right, @Snarf Zagyg

And yeah. I mostly agree. Though I think the current bounds of incitement could be expanded a bit to better protect people from bigots, I still agree they have a right to their own opinions.

But if someone starts spouting Nazi propaganda within punching range of me, allllll bets are off. 'Cause there's some speech that is, -inherently- a threat to my safety, and I will respond accordingly.

And my father was a Drill Sergeant. And taught his kids how to protect themselves.

Yeah.

I'm in Canada and I'm very happy with our laws forbidding hate speech.

Some speech must be forbidden. Utter threats and conspiracy are examples of expressing oneself that should not be allowed.

"Hate speech" is both uttering threats and incitement to violence and so it should not be allowed.
 

Yeah.

I'm in Canada and I'm very happy with our laws forbidding hate speech.

Some speech must be forbidden. Utter threats and conspiracy are examples of expressing oneself that should not be allowed.

"Hate speech" is both uttering threats and incitement to violence and so it should not be allowed.
As an American currently living in Canada, I'm not sure that the practicality of your sentiment is in actual practice.

The bigotry is differently directed than what I'm used to in the states, but it is quite healthy and folks are quite willing to discuss how they feel about "those people."

I'm not sure that there is some magical post bigotry land that can look down upon all those other people still wallowing in their archaic prejudices.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Trending content

Remove ads

Top