D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[Satyrn]

I assume the discussion here surround Affirmative Action relates to mandatory gnome barbarian quotas? Right? We're talking about gaming here?

"They're stealing muh kills!"

 

[Sacrosanct]

Until you remove ANYTHING and EVERYTHING from admission guidelines and hiring requirements that are not directly and 100% related to experience, talent, and qualifications to do the work you will have people complain and they will have a right to complain because this is a country of free speech. If you are tired of hearing it then you should stop listening. Your sensitive ears are not their problem, they are only your problem.

Free speech doesn't apply on a privately owned message board, and even in public, doesn't mean freedom from consequence. So let's add ignorance of the 1st amendment to your list of other things you're ignorant on, like how AA works.

The consequences of free speech is me telling you that you are arguing a sexist position. Otherwise, I anxiously await you to show me your posts saying the same thing you just said here about WoTC's hires of men. In fact, I anxioulsy await anyone who has questioned the hiring of Kate to show me where they've done the same on the same grounds when a man was hired there.

I bet I'll be waiting a long time.

You're not fooling anyone.

 

[redrick]

You mean hire someone other than a stereo geek to write the installation instructions for the stereo so that normal humans can understand them?

Seriously, all y'all, stop bringing this conversation back to variations of, "She does not have the experience for the job." Like, "Oh, so she was hired because of her inexperience."

All accounts point to the fact that she does have the experience for the job. Starting with the fact that she was hired for the job. She might not have ever designed an independent small press role-playing game before (because I know all of you played Iron Heroes campaigns before, right?) But she has major leagues experience in a related field, video game design.

I work in film. Sometimes there is a territorial line that gets drawn between features and television. "Oh, they just do features," or, "Oh, but they're a TV person." But let me tell you, if you are crewing up a major feature film, and you are looking at a candidate who worked on a $1 million independent feature that premiered at the Pittsburg Film Festival, and another candidate who worked on an HBO TV show, you are probably going to go with the TV candidate. Particularly if they go to the art-house movie theater every week anyway.

 

[CleverNickName]

I honestly can't tell if DocMoriartty is trolling, or if he honestly believes what he is writing. But here's the deal.

Only one type of person was offended by Mearl's tweet...one very specific type, with a unique set of characteristics both physical and psychological. Everyone else had the usual variety of responses to a celebrity discussing this topic: some were curious, or confused, or happy or sad or proud, embarrassed, impressed, and so forth.

There were many different responses, positive negative and neutral. But only a very specific group was offended.

 

[epithet]

Until you remove ANYTHING and EVERYTHING from admission guidelines and hiring requirements that are not directly and 100% related to experience, talent, and qualifications to do the work you will have people complain and they will have a right to complain because this is a country of free speech. If you are tired of hearing it then you should stop listening. Your sensitive ears are not their problem, they are only your problem.

You have a right to complain, just not a right to complain here. Participating in this conversation is a privilege, not a right. Also, Hasbro/WotC has an absolute prerogative to determine the qualifications for the job and the scope of the work they're hiring someone for without consulting any of us. They're accountable to their shareholders, and that accounting will be based on sales numbers. Your vote is limited to choosing whether and when to purchase their product, or not.

Your assessment of "their problem" vs "your problem" should probably include a glance in the mirror.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Second, cool it with the "privilege" crap. The implication is that white males are somehow unable to understand whatever point you're making, and therefore can and should have their opinions dismissed. That is exactly as "toxic" as any other kind of -ism. We're all using our free time to have a discussion on an internet message board, so we're all "privileged" to one degree or another, and nothing stands to be gained by hanging labels on each other.
.

I never implied that white males are unable to understand what white privilege is. I am a white male, as are many others who have commented here and we completely get it. I'm saying he doesn't get it, by what he's saying, because what he's saying is literally the definition of what white male privilege is. If someone is going to make a sexist comment, then they absolutely should be called out on it. Because you don't like it for whatever reason doesn't matter to me at all. Trying to silence other people for pointing it out does nothing but make the problem worse, because it normalizes it, and ironically sets the stage for you to enjoy that privilege yourself because you're not one of the people being adversely affected by those beliefs.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

aaa

 

[JacktheRabbit]

aaa

 

[Sacrosanct]

So it doesn't get lost in my earlier post:

I anxiously await anyone who has questioned the hiring of Kate to show me where they've done the same on the same grounds when a man was hired there. The AA disclaimer has been on their job postings for decades.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

aaa