D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[JacktheRabbit]

aaa

 

[jayoungr]

And, well, the undesirable trait here, quite clearly is a wrong pair of chromosomes.

I may regret getting into this thread, but there's something I always think about whenever the subject of "gatekeeping" against "fake geek girls" comes up. I'll try to put this as delicately and neutrally as possible.

It is my experience that the impulse to "gatekeep" is not applied universally to every being with two X chromosomes.

It is my impression, although this is anecdotal and I could be wrong, that the impulse is typically applied to those who have two X chromosomes and are physically attractive. Possibly because those who harbor the impulse to gatekeep feel threatened by such beings.

Which kind of further suggests that not getting this treatment is its own sort of insult.

I'd love to be wrong. If others have different explanations, I'm interested in hearing them.

 

[epithet]

No, that is utterly not the case. The fact that you can actually be banned for it means that you do not have the right. The very fact that you can be rightly punished for violating the rules of the board prove that's the case. If you had the right, Morrus couldn't ban you. It would be up to the rest of us to social ostracize you or call you out for your dickish statements.
But he can set the rules on content because it's his board.

Yeah, a lot of people understandably get confused by the difference between a right and a privilege. The easy way to keep them straight is by remembering that a right has a corresponding duty. In the US, for example, your right of free speech goes along with a duty on the part of the government to provide a forum for you to exercise that right. That's why they have to issue permits for anyone, no matter how unpopular, to have a demonstration.

By contrast, posting in a forum is a privilege. As such, no one has a duty to make that available to you, and your posting privilege can be cut off at any time by the administrator of the forum. If you purchase a contractual right to use a product, such as an online forum, then you can enforce that right as with any contract, in most cases that means you can demand a refund. You cannot in any circumstance assert your 1st Amendment right of free speech on this privately administered forum, and no one is under any obligation to make it available for your use unless you specifically pay for it.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

aaa

 

[Maxperson]

Well, it's nice to see DocMoriartty quote me and then immediately put me on ignore so I can't see what he quoted me for. Can't say I'm all that surprised with that level of integrity, based on earlier posts...

The cyber bullying encouraged by this site through the use of the ignore button is strange given that the staff here often posts about not allowing that sort of thing to go on. Forcing you to block them against your will is not much different than a schoolyard bully forcing you to give up your lunch money.

 

[epithet]

I may regret getting into this thread, but there's something I always think about whenever the subject of "gatekeeping" against "fake geek girls" comes up. I'll try to put this as delicately and neutrally as possible.

It is my experience that the impulse to "gatekeep" is not applied universally to every being with two X chromosomes.

It is my impression, although this is anecdotal and I could be wrong, that the impulse is typically applied to those who have two X chromosomes and are physically attractive. Possibly because those who harbor the impulse to gatekeep feel threatened by such beings.

Which kind of further suggests that not getting this treatment is its own sort of insult.

I'd love to be wrong. If others have different explanations, I'm interested in hearing them.

Huh.

I would expect it to be the opposite, really. I think the general rule is that you get special treatment if you're pretty. Which, now that I think about it, makes this situation kind of baffling. Kate's an attractive lady with a bright and engaging personality, so you'd think the crusty gatekeepers would be holding the door open for her.

Clearly, I know nothing.

 

[Maxperson]

No, that is utterly not the case. The fact that you can actually be banned for it means that you do not have the right. The very fact that you can be rightly punished for violating the rules of the board prove that's the case. If you had the right, Morrus couldn't ban you. It would be up to the rest of us to social ostracize you or call you out for your dickish statements.
But he can set the rules on content because it's his board.

So you really think that the existence of a consequence means that you don't have free speech? Well, then free speech doesn't exist anywhere in the world. There are always consequences that can happen.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

aaa

 

[epithet]

Since everyone seems to be acting in a vacuum I would like someone to provide evidence that a majority of the people who questioned or "goalposted" the new WOTC hire did so because they were sexists bent on keeping women out of the RPG community.

That is the "fact" posted by Mearls and defended by a large number of people here on the forum. So provide the evidence. Statements are being made so please back them up. If that is the case then absolutely run every single racist, every single sexist, every single homophone, every single hater of any sort who has a problem with a certain type of person sitting down at a gaming table with them right out of the hobby. They are not needed nor desired.

The problem is I do not believe that evidence exists, or if it does it points at a VERY VERY small number of people, certainly not a large enough group of people to justify a tweet written that implies that anyone that had questions regarding the hire were doing so purely from a sexist agenda.

I don't understand some of the more arcane aspects of quantum theory. I've never studied it, and I'm really only mildly interested in it. I can't see quantum stuff happening around me, but once in a while I read an article about it and generally accept the fact that those folks at CERN know more about it that I do, mostly because it's what they do all day.

In a similar way, I don't understand the declaration that there have been a bunch of sexists who railed against hiring a D&D product designer because she's female. It seems preposterous. It makes no sense. I mean, who has an interest in keeping women out of the tabletop RPG hobby? But what I can see, and what is obvious to me, is that Mike was all pissed off about it. I'm willing to generally accept that he's got a better grasp of what's going on with D&D, its fans, and its presence in social media than I do, mostly because it's what he does all day.

On the flip side, despite being disappointed with The Last Jedi on many levels and for many reasons, I actually like the character of Rey and I'm delighted for Daisy Ridley to be playing the new "chosen one." Nevertheless, I've faced the asinine assumption that if I don't like SWTLJ, it must be because I don't want a girl to be a jedi. Seriously, I got accused of that in an IO9 comment. So I'm open to the possibility that some of these accusations of -ism are bull crap. But... not all of them.

The internet is not a happy place. I don't doubt for a moment that among the messages flung at and about Kate were some that were truly vile. Clearly some of those pushed Mike past the point of restraint. We'll almost certainly never know any significant data about all this wailing and gnashing of teeth, but really... do we need to? In response to her being hired, some people responded in an obnoxious way. Some of them were undoubtedly overtly misogynist. In the final calculation, Kate and Wizards caught a load of crap that they didn't deserve, and it doesn't much matter (to me) what the underlying motivations would look like on a pie chart.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t agree with your interpretation at all. As already lointed out, he is not comparing mechanics vs lore. He’s sayibg that these things can typically be used by gatekeepers to keep “outsiders” from the game.

Then he says that it seems like lots of people that gatekeep in this way also seem to want to keep women from the game. He’s not commenting on Kate’s preferred playstyle at all..

So much this. Mike isn’t saying, “if you like deep lore and complex rules, you are a gatekeeping misogynist.” He’s not even saying “people who like deep lore and complex rules often have problems with women.” He’s saying, “People who use rules complexity and lore density for the purpose of gatekeeping often have problems with women in gaming.” Not a particularly inflammatory statement if you’re not looking for something to be offended about. “People who want to scare people away from the hobby often count women among the people they want to scare away” is an entirely accurate observation, and if you don’t try to use the rules and lore to actively deter new people from the hobby, then you have no reason to get defensive over it. You’re not the people the tweet refers to.