Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[Bill Zebub]

If WotC as the rights holder decides to suppress OA from distribution because of its content, that seems to be a straightforward instance of private institution censorship.

It is within their legal rights to do so and does not infringe on anybody's first amendment rights, but it seems to be clearly within the definitions of censorship.

Does that mean that anybody who owns the rights to a work must continue to make it available, or be guilty of censorship?

 

[FrogReaver]

Does that mean that anybody who owns the rights to a work must continue to make it available, or be guilty of censorship?

IMO. An actual physical book that you own. Absolutely not. A digitial pdf where your ownership is treated just as owning the physical book. Absolutely not. A digital pdf that you signed a EULA saying you can use it but can't transfer it others - I think that last one is censorship if the company in question doesn't either a) grant those subject to that EULA full rights to transfer their 'copy' of the work when they stop selling it OR b) keep selling the pdf under that EULA.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There ARE other sources. I've been trying to say that when I've made statements in the thread.

The PROBLEM is that they do NOT AGREE with what the youtube videos are talking about...and I think because of that NO ONE here that agrees with those youtubers wants to actually LOOK at the issues or the actual items in them...

Mod Note:

That’s a long post with some…awkward twists and turns. I don’t think you intended it as such, but some passages come off a bit anti-inclusive.

I think it’s abundantly clear that no group is monolithic in their opinions on subjects that affect them, and Asian gamers are no different.

But to assume that Asian gamers’ view that OA is problematic isn’t in the majority of their community right now (or wasn’t in the past) isn’t supported by the facts. Neither is the contrary. Simply put, hard data one way or the other is scarce or nonexistent.

All we know is that complaints were made from the first release, and continue to this day,

 

[Bill Zebub]

IMO. An actual physical book that you own. Absolutely not. A digitial pdf where your ownership is treated just as owning the physical book. Absolutely not. A digital pdf that you signed a EULA saying you can use it but can't transfer it others - I think that last one is censorship if the company in question doesn't either a) grant those subject to that EULA full rights to transfer their 'copy' of the work when they stop selling it OR b) keep selling the pdf under that EULA.

Yeah, three times you’ve responded to my posts with questions/comments about the transferability of PDFs. I have no %#?$ing idea. IANAL.

All I said is that I think WotC should stop selling new copies. Not hunt down and confiscate old physical copies. Not release a virus to destroy existing PDFs. Just…stop selling some of their old IP. Maybe even give a 1 month warning, so people who REALLY want 40 year old bad content can do so.

And then release an awesome new update (hopefully with a new title) for 5e.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It indicates either a lack of research (it's easy to check that Comliness predates OA), or a desire to be offended, or perhaps even intellectual dishonesty.

Mod Note:

“…a desire to be offended”? My dog heard this whistle. Let’s not blow it again.

 

[gamerprinter]

You want to know what negatively affected the Japanese as far feeling something like "appropriation", was James Clavell's Shogun. It's based on a true story - an English merchant captain shipwrecks off Japan and is taken into the House of Nobunaga and treated as a samurai. Except Clavell changed all the real names to fictional names, including Nobunaga as Toranaga (which isn't really a Japanese word; Japanese names are nouns.) Why in the Hell would Clavell do that - that really pissed off the Japanese in the 1970's. I don't believe most Japanese are truly offended by American stylized poor Japanese attempts like OA, they don't really think about that at all. They assume we're ignorant, and of course, for the most part, we are... Shogun TV short series was a bigtime television event at the time, so that affected them more directly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

ACLU definition

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period.

Wikiepedia definition

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.

Merriam Webster definition

transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
censor the news
also
: to suppress or delete as objectionable
censor out indecent passages


The U.S. Constitutional First Amendment Rights deal with protection from the government.

Censorship is a broader concept than just government suppression of ideas. Government censorship is a subset of censoring.

The bolded part is important because people often defend against the first when you are talking about the second in these conversations. Just because you haven't violated someone's first amendment rights by going after the machinery of how works are made available (i.e. organizing and pressuring a publisher to take down content you dislike) doesn't mean it isn't censorious (and I think censoriousness, especially if we are talking about something like a game book or movie that has been made available to people, and people want access to it is wrong). And in the case of OA, it is hard to have a conversation about it, if people can't access the text.

 

[Voadam]

Does that mean that anybody who owns the rights to a work must continue to make it available, or be guilty of censorship?

It means anyone who suppresses information because of its content is definitionally engaging in censorship.

An intellectual property rights holder choosing to make a work unavailable because of its content is engaging in censorship.

Someone advocating for the removal of access to a work based on its content is advocating for censorship of that work.

Definitionally.

 

[Umbran]

Shouldn't it have been left out of ALL OF D&D?

Maybe. But, you seem to be discarding how context matters. It can be worse in some situations than others.

Imagine you have a recipe for... strawberry spaghetti. It is kind of nasty. However, it is even worse if you are serving it to someone you know is allergic to strawberries.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe. But, you seem to be discarding how context matters. It can be worse in some situations than others.

Imagine you have a recipe for... strawberry spaghetti. It is kind of nasty. However, it is even worse if you are serving it to someone you know is allergic to strawberries.

Yea, but sometimes we think we are the allergic when we are actually the server