D&D 5E (2014) Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[Obryn]

First off - aaa

Second.

Just letting you know how, 'telling people they're asshats' isn't very effective in terms of promoting change in others. It's a failing strategy, one that promotes confrontation and polarizes opinions. If folks want a fight, ok, then its a great way to get one.

If folks really want to promote change in others they need to step out of the ring, take a deep breath, and meet at the table.

Sure, we can deem some folks not worth the time but then - who gets to decided which folks are worthy? Based on what list of merits? Which prejudices will determine who gets the effort?

I believe the intent is great. Healthy. But the behaviour can often be at best, clumsy and confrontational. Ineffective.

Again tho, this is if folks actually want to promote change in others. If they just want to 'be right' and win some moral victory, then hey. Tell tell away!

A few quick notes. First, I often see exactly this argument made in bad faith by folks who don't want to change, but also don't want to be called an asshat. Now, not saying this is you, but that's usually where it's coming from. As an example, there's a guy who has worked tirelessly to get people out of the Klan through kindness and caring. Yes, this is an awesome thing to do. But if this extraordinary guy is being held up as an example of what everyone should do, that's a problem.

Second, it's a terrible line of argument because you're putting the burden of civility and change-making on the victims rather than the aggressors. You're also opening up settled topics to a whole host of sea-lioning.

Third, who gets to decide who's worthy of engagement? Well, whoever's talking with them, I'd say. It's not like there's an outside governing board who gets to make this call.

And fourth, contrary to your post, declaring that some positions and opinions (and those who hold them dear) are simply not welcome in a society (say, misogyny and racism) can, indeed, create social change. Even if it's not going to change that one guy, there's other folks who may be persuaded, and it can start or preserve a social movement.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Ghostbusters was a great example. Because it wasn't a bad movie. It just wasn't a good one. Solid B- Below average. But hardly the worst movie even released that month.
But you look at the reviews online (and here) and you'd think it was as bad as the G.I. Joe or Bayformers movies for “killing childhoods”.

To be fair - while it wasn't the worst movie released that month, it was a pretty terrible Ghostbusters movie. If it was its own thing, not connected to two very popular movies, I doubt expectations would have been so high. They were, for better or for worse, so the comparatively quality difference that more apparent. Hence nerd/fan rage!

 

[Sacrosanct]

And fourth, contrary to your post, declaring that some positions and opinions (and those who hold them dear) are simply not welcome in a society (say, misogyny and racism) can, indeed, create social change. Even if it's not going to change that one guy, there's other folks who may be persuaded, and it can start or preserve a social movement.

Related to this, by not calling out abhorrent behavior and beliefs, it normalizes it, and emboldens people with said beliefs to be more vocal and think that their views are no longer extreme, but normal. Just look at the past 2 years in the US, and how the rhetoric has changed. Alt Right (White supremacist) views have now been considered an actual official platform as valid as any other major platform. Largely because people are afraid for calling out blatant racism for what it is, and anyone who does, is immediately attacked and racist tries to shift to make it sound like they are the actual victim.

*Before someone says that alt right isn't white supremacy, I should point out how the term was created by Richard Spencer (avid white nationalist) intentionally as a way to "soften" the white nationalist views and trick people into thinking they aren't as bad, because "alt right" doesn't sound nearly as bad as "white nationalist". But they are very much the same thing.

 

[Obryn]

Makes sense to me.

I do believe gaming is for everyone. And everyone should be welcome... but... I do known if I were running a business, I wouldn't want certain groups as patrons. White supremacists for example. We don't need them in a community.
And misogynists are another.

So while everyone should be welcome in gaming, anyone who isn't willing to welcome people of all ethnicities, genders, or creeds into the hobby simply isn't making the hobby a better place.
Which is kinda ironic. Maybe even hypocritical. But I can life with that, because **** Nazis and sexist jerks.

Karl Popper was on it in 1945.

"The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

First off - aaa

Second.


A few quick notes. First, I often see exactly this argument made in bad faith by folks who don't want to change, but also don't want to be called an asshat. Now, not saying this is you, but that's usually where it's coming from. As an example, there's a guy who has worked tirelessly to get people out of the Klan through kindness and caring. Yes, this is an awesome thing to do. But if this extraordinary guy is being held up as an example of what everyone should do, that's a problem.

Second, it's a terrible line of argument because you're putting the burden of civility and change-making on the victims rather than the aggressors. You're also opening up settled topics to a whole host of sea-lioning.

Third, who gets to decide who's worthy of engagement? Well, whoever's talking with them, I'd say. It's not like there's an outside governing board who gets to make this call.

And fourth, contrary to your post, declaring that some positions and opinions (and those who hold them dear) are simply not welcome in a society (say, misogyny and racism) can, indeed, create social change. Even if it's not going to change that one guy, there's other folks who may be persuaded, and it can start or preserve a social movement.

On the flip side, I see the same half-efforts with folks not willing to go the distance. And then expecting, as if by some miracle, folks to change. It becomes worse when others see such efforts and support through doing more of the same, until it becomes the norm - and anything beyond this norm is considered 'extraordinary'.

With regards to your second point - if folks are fighting in a war of words/displays action, then both groups are aggressors. The challenge is to step away from an 'victim / aggressor', a 'us vs them' mentality and approach it on an individual level, compassionately and with biases - to the best of our ability - acknowledged and checked.

With regards to worthy of engagement. How many healthy, constructive conversations have started with, 'You are wrong because...'?

And lastly, I admire your optimism. Perhaps sadly, from my experience, those that want to change will change for their own reasons - they're not the 'problem. Those that don't will simply feed on (what they perceive as) aggressor's attacks. At best, they go underground, and the only thing that have changed is that it becomes harder to keep tabs and attempts to encourage change through a healthy dialogue becomes that much harder.

 

[nswanson27]

Karl Popper was on it in 1945.

"The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Going waaay off topic here. But this will inevitability lead to the subject of who gets to decide what should be not tolerated and why. It's not the "what" that is most controversial, it's the "who" or "which side". If both sides presume that their side has the moral authority to do so, then you have a non-productive discussion in the making.
IMO the best course in this case is to acknowledge that this is the fundamental problem, and discuss that instead.

 

[Morrus]

Karl Popper was on it in 1945.

"The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Yeah, Popper's Paradox. Anybody who comes at me (and they do soooo often...) with that tired old "You have to tolerate my intolerance and include my non-inclusiveness" just gets a eye-roll and is promptly disregarded.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In fairness, I didn't apply to UT Law School, because the UH Law Center gave me a full tuition scholarship (thanks U of H!) I do remember the chart from my undergraduate application, though. It was in the application packet, and it was as I described it. Maybe the law school had a more elegantly implemented program.

Also, you might be thinking of a different UT "reverse discrimination" case. There have been several, and the one from the early 90s (Hopwood) didn't go the University's way.

In Hopwood, four white plaintiffs who had been rejected from University of Texas at Austin's School of Law challenged the institution's admissions policy on equal protection grounds and prevailed. Briefly.
.
The Supreme Court abrogated Hopwood in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the high court found that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body"

 

[Obryn]

Going waaay off topic here. But this will inevitability lead to the subject of who gets to decide what should be not tolerated and why. It's not the "what" that is most controversial, it's the "who" or "which side". If both side presume that their side has the moral authority to do so, then you have a non-productive discussion in the making.
IMO the best course in this case is to acknowledge that this is the fundamental problem, and discuss that instead.

Nah. It's really not a hard question, and it's addressed within the paradox itself.

On the flip side, I see the same half-efforts with folks not willing to go the distance. And then expecting, as if by some miracle, folks to change. It becomes worse when others see such efforts and support through doing more of the same, until it becomes the norm - and anything beyond this norm is considered 'extraordinary'.

With regards to your second point - if folks are fighting in a war of words/displays action, then both groups are aggressors. The challenge is to step away from an 'victim / aggressor', a 'us vs them' mentality and approach it on an individual level, compassionately and with biases - to the best of our ability - acknowledged and checked.

With regards to worthy of engagement. How many healthy, constructive conversations have started with, 'You are wrong because...'?

And lastly, I admire your optimism. Perhaps sadly, from my experience, those that want to change will change for their own reasons - they're not the 'problem. Those that don't will simply feed on (what they perceive as) aggressor's attacks. At best, they go underground, and the only thing that have changed is that it becomes harder to keep tabs and attempts to encourage change through a healthy dialogue becomes that much harder.

Again, nah. I can acknowledge that it's great when people go out and engage. Good on them.

The problem is that you're still insisting (a) moral equivalence of all positions, and (b) that the onus of changing misogyny and gatekeeping isn't on the misogynists and gatekeepers themselves.

Oh and (c) that being a misogynist is equally as aggressive as pointing out that someone a misogynist (or at the very least behaving like one).

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Going waaay off topic here. But this will inevitability lead to the subject of who gets to decide what should be not tolerated and why. It's not the "what" that is most controversial, it's the "who" or "which side". If both side presume that their side has the moral authority to do so, then you have a non-productive discussion in the making.
IMO the best course in this case is to acknowledge that this is the fundamental problem, and discuss that instead.

To further this - and to clarify my own intent:

I'm not looking to argue whether calling something out as wrong is an action that should or should not be taken.

I'm hoping to nudge people into considering: What comes next?

So we've labelled all the 'bad ones*' and listed their crimes. What comes next? Execute them? Lock 'em up? Stash them on an island?

To my mind, realistically and practically, at least within my understanding of the ethical/moral space I would consider occupied by folks not prone to mass incarcerations or executions (!!), what comes next is - how to have them change for the better**. Note - have them change, not 'change them'. My limited professional experience and a fair amount of literature by folks much cleverer than I supports that change has to come from the person we wish to change. This would seem like a healthy way to begin efforts to reintegrate and realign the 'bad ones' with ...whichever social group/construct is in a position to do the reintegrating/realigning (!!).

Which is why I'm rather fond of efforts to move away from the 'us vs them' 'aggressor / victim***' dynamic in favour of a more constructive, less confrontational stance. Which typically starts with the intent of engaging in conversation whilst practicing compassion****.




*..for a specific meaning of 'bad one/s'!

** ..again, very very veeeery subjective, but hey!

*** ..which is not say there are never any victims or aggressors, obviously!

**** ..sure its not easy, but that's why folks practice!