D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[Jefe Bergenstein]

"We'll all be paladins?!?" That's a HUGE surprise to me.

All I could think was "free balling paladins". Oath of the Ancients party animal it is!

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I see what your saying. I just wish I had any faith that it was an actual success. When someone’s parting words include something that insulting and wrong, it feels like I either completely bungled my own attempts at communicating, or else I’m being willfully mischaracterized in order to avoid the very soul searching that’s being claimed. Either way doesn’t feel like a success to me.

I hear ya - he biggest problem folks have when promoting change in other is knowing when to step back and trust the other to get on with it. I mean, let's face it - there's no guarantees, past actions hardly support our biases and we have no idea what's going on with them but hey, it is what it is. Finding a feeling for success? Sadly, very rare and to be honest - personal with no relevance to the process. But a really lovely feeling to have, when possible!

Heck, after everything, worst case scenario? Nothing changes. And all we can do sometimes is give folks the space to prove us wrong, in the best possible way. To be clear - the effort on your/those trying's part is getting to the point where they're willing to at least do a little self reflection. That's something.

 

[Obryn]

I can't tell if you are engaged in some sort of long-con performance art troll, in which case, congratulations, you have succeeded on getting a bunch of people on the internet to offer sincere and thoughtful statements to you. If that is not the case, I think your statements are very inconsistent and seem to veer from anti-feminist anti-diversity arguments to pro-diversity arguments and maybe you think you are proving a point but I'm not seeing it. Maybe you really are trying to find a middle path, in which case, I wish you the best in that.

I am right on the same page. There's just so many random red flags, interwoven with what seem like they might be genuine sentiments.

But I'm personally tired of being called a liar, a troll, and a sadist, so I'm done with them.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Obryn]

I guess for me this means that you're not racist. At some point a person's genuine intentions shines though saying something that was thoughtless or worded wrong - most of the time. That's assuming the conversation is held in good faith and not just to pick each other apart for disingenuous motivations. I don't really feel like living in the US makes you any more prone to racism than other places in the world (and actually it's a LOT less than some places).

Nah. Like I said, nobody is perfect.

And I was simply saying that - having lived in the USA through the 80's 90's and so on, I absorbed biases that were present in media, my family, friends, etc. This doesn't make me a bad person, but it does mean I grew up with attitudes that I can't change if I don't try to be conscious of them.

And I was not implying that the USA is uniquely bad when it comes to racism - we're not Japan, for example - only that these are the biases I inherited.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Afrodyte]

It's actually pretty interesting; everything you just said is completely wrong.

Luke, is that you?

 

[nswanson27]

Nah. Like I said, nobody is perfect.

And I was simply saying that - having lived in the USA through the 80's 90's and so on, I absorbed biases that were present in media, my family, friends, etc. This doesn't make me a bad person, but it does mean I grew up with attitudes that I can't change if I don't try to be conscious of them.

And I was not implying that the USA is uniquely bad when it comes to racism - we're not Japan, for example - only that these are the biases I inherited.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Ok, yeah I get that. I guess I feel like there is a stopping point where they do get all worked out, but maybe it depends where and how you were raised - I can only speak for how I was raised I guess. Any sort of bias, whether institutional or just against a particular individual, was never an ok thing when I grew up.

 

[Obryn]

Ok, yeah I get that. I guess I feel like there is a stopping point where they do get all worked out, but maybe it depends where and how you were raised - I can only speak for how I was raised I guess. Any sort of bias, whether institutional or just against a particular individual, was never an ok thing when I grew up.

Oh the overt stuff was never okay - I was raised in a nearly-entirely-white, nearly-entirely-wealthy suburb with a good school district, etc. Those aren't the kind of biases I was talking about. But that's getting pretty far afield.

 

[Shasarak]

Well, near as I can tell, it's earned him a good degree of praise around most parts, raised awareness of misogynistic gatekeeping among people who didn't know it was an issue, and it has evidently hit a sore spot for the folks it was targeted at.

So unless I miss my guess, I'd say it's working as intended.

I have seen a couple of people, the same couple of people that you always see. Never seen Mearls make a big deal over it until people question his hiring practice so me thinks more of a bruised ego then anything else.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

No, you were disparaging, in very strong terms, people who were standing up for what was right because they weren't doing it in the way you thought was the right way, for reasons that I have refuted multiple times now and that you have not even once responded to. Then, as the icing on the cake, you chose to cast aspersions on those people's motivations as well.

I am always doing soul searching, as should we all. I'm genuinely glad that you have too. However, you don't get to clearly and definitively insult that many people so harshly and then turn around and act innocent and pretend you were only talking about yourself.

I'll address this with the next post.

Honestly, do you hear yourself? And you wonder why your "strategy" was dismissed out of hand?

Edit: Sorry, being flip again. But seriously, how dare you cast aspersions on the motivations of people talking about supporting Kate Welch and women like her, while here you are talking about how to "use her" as a "strategy"?

Yes, I am aware of how it sounds with how I worded it. Yes, I am aware of how people would dismiss it out of hand when they see it presented that way. That's why I presented it that way; the objective is to show that, yes, the post is about me and I'm holding myself at fault by bringing up one item as evidence.

I mean, think about it... When have I not been self-righteous in this? And I made it clear I have an agenda that I would be using Kate Welch as an icon for; it was mentioned in several posts and made explicit in a reply to billd91. Can you name anyone else in the thread who did something like that?

The "leapt to the defense" was sarcasm about some of my own comments in the discussion with Obryn.

Seriously, it was all about me. And every bit of the middle portion of that post was packed with a reference or mention of something I had done in the thread, and filled with venom. If I was going to argue further about the issue or cast aspirations, I wouldn't have stopped for a bit earlier or stopped with the trolling/trawling comment to your post. If I wanted to pick a massive fight with someone on this topic, you would be the prime candidate; the very first post you made that I read gave me a good read on where you stand.

Also, if you want me to deal with your posts, let's start with one misconception you have: Yes, the people going after Kate Welch are trolls. Yes, they are misogynists. Trolling and misogyny are not mutually exclusive.

There are many misogynists who use the internet, but do not seek out conflict with women or even actively avoid that conflict; there are some on this very forum, even if they don't realize it. There are even misogynists who think they are feminists. These are not the people going after Kate Welch. The people who go after Kate Welch are the misogynists who actively seek conflict. The ones who actively seek to engage. The ones who actively seek to dominate. They are misogynistic trolls.

Yes, multiple types of trolls exist. It can be hilarious if you get two types that hate each into to fight it out. Just like how there are branches of Anonymous that actively oppose other branches of Anonymous and the resulting hilarity of reading the stories about them hacking each other.

What did the above accomplish as far as the actual topic of the thread or as far as my posts? Nothing. Your entire complaint about whether or not misogynists are trolls is completely irrelevant to the issue you were talking about, which is why I ignored it initially. And yet, I can guarantee you the above is an example of something like 90% of the conversation between us, and at the same time it will amount to nothing to address the issue of sexism and my stance and what my post meant. It would just be continuing pointless arguing. Which is why I'm going back to ignoring it.

Now, do you want to continue to argue about my soul-searching post? Because I have a lot more links where the billd91 came from to back me for evidence. I'm keeping my entire posting history open in another browser, just for this. I can show you every single reference in that post, link to enough evidence to prove what I am saying easily... but, does it matter?

At the end of the day, you have three choices: You can either accept I was calling myself out with some very vicious sarcasm, decide you don't believe me and it's not worth the effort to argue, or you can decide you're not going to believe anything I say and ultimately waste the time of both of us on a worthless pursuit of a truth that doesn't exist. Me, I have the free time to pursue this; is your time as valueless as mine? Do you have anything better to do than sit here and argue with someone who will never concede a point they outright state does not exist?

I don't know what "the icon bit" is. I saw your exchange with Obryn earlier where you accused him of wanting Kate Welch to martyr herself against and be subjected to all sorts of awful behavior and your statements seemed way off base and a total misreading of the situation. I read some of your "strategy" as well. I'm not going to comment on it.

The outlined plan to billd91 related to Kate Welch being the PR face of WotC in an advancing inclusivity drive, which I admit was inspired in part out of pure spite against the people who drew Mearls' ire.

I can't tell if you are engaged in some sort of long-con performance art troll, in which case, congratulations, you have succeeded on getting a bunch of people on the internet to offer sincere and thoughtful statements to you. If that is not the case, I think your statements are very inconsistent and seem to veer from anti-feminist anti-diversity arguments to pro-diversity arguments and maybe you think you are proving a point but I'm not seeing it. Maybe you really are trying to find a middle path, in which case, I wish you the best in that.

It is not the case, and I will consider your words carefully. Thank you.

 

[Gradine]

Yes, I am aware of how it sounds with how I worded it. Yes, I am aware of how people would dismiss it out of hand when they see it presented that way. That's why I presented it that way; the objective is to show that, yes, the post is about me and I'm holding myself at fault by bringing up one item as evidence.

I mean, think about it... When have I not been self-righteous in this? And I made it clear I have an agenda that I would be using Kate Welch as an icon for; it was mentioned in several posts and made explicit in a reply to billd91. Can you name anyone else in the thread who did something like that?

The "leapt to the defense" was sarcasm about some of my own comments in the discussion with Obryn.

Seriously, it was all about me. And every bit of the middle portion of that post was packed with a reference or mention of something I had done in the thread, and filled with venom. If I was going to argue further about the issue or cast aspirations, I wouldn't have stopped for a bit earlier or stopped with the trolling/trawling comment to your post. If I wanted to pick a massive fight with someone on this topic, you would be the prime candidate; the very first post you made that I read gave me a good read on where you stand.

You can see how the sentence I originally quoted clearly looks to be an insult and disparaging comment leveled at basically everyone arguing on the same side, though, right? I mean, it looks and feels pretty clear to me. I'll accept it's possible I took it out of context, but I don't think that context was all that clear without a Ph.D in this thread. I'll be the first to admit that it struck a chord.

Also, if you want me to deal with your posts, let's start with one misconception you have: Yes, the people going after Kate Welch are trolls. Yes, they are misogynists. Trolling and misogyny are not mutually exclusive.

There are many misogynists who use the internet, but do not seek out conflict with women or even actively avoid that conflict; there are some on this very forum, even if they don't realize it. There are even misogynists who think they are feminists. These are not the people going after Kate Welch. The people who go after Kate Welch are the misogynists who actively seek conflict. The ones who actively seek to engage. The ones who actively seek to dominate. They are misogynistic trolls.

Yes, multiple types of trolls exist. It can be hilarious if you get two types that hate each into to fight it out. Just like how there are branches of Anonymous that actively oppose other branches of Anonymous and the resulting hilarity of reading the stories about them hacking each other.

I agree that multiple types of trolls exist, and that trolls can be misogynists (either in actual ideology or just pretending to be to rile people up, but that tends to be a distinction without a difference more often than not). However, I think you're severely underestimating the actual problem here. There are dark places of the internet, especially in places like Reddit or 4chan, where misogynists collaborate. Organize. These are not trolls, at least not in the sense that they're mostly stirring the pot for and giggles and will go away if nobody pays attention to them. They are a movement, and one that craves legitimacy and power. The way they gain that legitimacy is to act without consequences or challenge. That is why they threaten to (or actually) doxx or swat people who speak out against them. That is why they try to cower people into tolerance, if not outright acceptance, for their cause. That is why ignoring them only emboldens them, rather than making them go away like regular trolls. That is why it's important for people, especially the kinds of people who aren't their typical targets, to stand up to them, wherever they manifest, and force them back into whatever dark holes they crawled out of in the first place.

And I mean, this is to say nothing about any of the other impacts of what Mearls and others have done. Let's not dismiss the significance or importance of demonstrating solidarity, for instance.