Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8758900" data-attributes="member: 59082">I find it disturbing how quickly disagreeing with the majority is labeled as &quot;trolling&quot; or &quot;disruptive&quot; or &quot;anti-inclusive.&quot; I mean maybe I missed a memo, but is the culture of this board now that if you don't agree and echo the dominant sentiment of a thread, you shouldn't post in a thread? Hopefully that isn't the case. It is one thing to (rightfully) castigate obvious bigotry, quite another to accuse anyone questioning whether something is bigotry or not, as being a bigot.Having different views on what is or is not racism does not mean one is racist, or &quot;not getting it&quot; and needing to be educated. Sometimes people just disagree with what constitutes racism or is problematic. I'd like to think that this is a community that would embrace, ah, a diversity of viewpoints on such matters, and not fall into OneTrueWayism in terms of how this or that must be interpreted, and if you don't interpret it the Right Way, then you're one of them. Or more to the point, if you don't automatically think the depiction of the hadozee in the Spelljammer product is problematic or racist, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're ignorant or, worse, racist. It may simply mean that you interpret the data differently. Again: clear and obvious bigotry and questioning whether something is bigotry are not the same thing.What I see happen again and again and again on this forum is that someone links to the latest outraged tweet, and there's a large outcry of echoing outrage, and then some folks say &quot;I don't see it&quot; or &quot;I disagree,&quot; and then the latter folks get attacked and/or labeled as &quot;anti-inclusive&quot; even though they're not excluding something but rather, ironically, their view is being excluded from discourse.Maybe ENW isn't the place to talk about such things, but if they're going to be talked about, I'd hope it could be a place where people feel safe to share their views, regardless of whether they agree with the majority view or not. I understand and support not allowing actual, outright bigotry, but differences of interpretation are an important part of such discourse.Edited for clarity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 8758900, member: 59082"] I find it disturbing how quickly disagreeing with the majority is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I mean maybe I missed a memo, but is the culture of this board now that if you don't agree and echo the dominant sentiment of a thread, you shouldn't post in a thread? Hopefully that isn't the case. It is one thing to (rightfully) castigate obvious bigotry, quite another to accuse anyone questioning whether something is bigotry or not, as being a bigot. Having different views on what is or is not racism does not mean one is racist, or "not getting it" and needing to be educated. Sometimes people just disagree with what constitutes racism or is problematic. I'd like to think that this is a community that would embrace, ah, a [I]diversity [/I]of viewpoints on such matters, and not fall into OneTrueWayism in terms of how this or that must be interpreted, and if you don't interpret it the Right Way, then you're one of [I]them. [/I] Or more to the point, if you don't automatically think the depiction of the hadozee in the Spelljammer product is problematic or racist, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're ignorant or, worse, racist. It may simply mean that you interpret the data differently. Again: clear and obvious bigotry and questioning whether something is bigotry are not the same thing. What I see happen again and again and [I]again [/I]on this forum is that someone links to the latest outraged tweet, and there's a large outcry of echoing outrage, and then some folks say "I don't see it" or "I disagree," and then the latter folks get attacked and/or labeled as "anti-inclusive" even though they're not [I]excluding [/I]something but rather, ironically, their view is being excluded from discourse. Maybe ENW isn't the place to talk about such things, but if they're going to be talked about, I'd hope it could be a place where people feel safe to share their views, regardless of whether they agree with the majority view or not. I understand and support not allowing actual, outright bigotry, but differences of interpretation are an important part of such discourse. [I]Edited for clarity.[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification