Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[Bedrockgames]

This is the problem with doing hot takes or reaction videos. I'm not going to hold it against them as it doesn't invalidate the main body of their complaints. It's not like we're dealing with a house of cards here.

I think these kinds of videos and podcasts, especially long form ones, are basically conversations. So I don't think it is fair to hold them to the same degree of scrutiny as say an article or a scholarly book. People will be reacting in real time, responding and thinking as they respond. It is not possible for people to be aware of everything. Ideally people know as much as possible prior to such a discussion but I think it still has to be understood as a conversation. Where I think there is more responsibility to sink into the details and for people to offer up facts, debate facts, is in conversation like this one as points and arguments from conversation on such podcasts filter into the broader gaming community. I am not particularly concerned that a point about comeliness was made in one of the many youtube panel discussions that were posted, and that there may be information they weren't aware of when they made that point. But now that we are talking about the issue of comeliness, that it was introduced prior to OA is relevant.

But just in terms of podcasts, when you have people talking for extended periods of time like that, things come up that can't be vetted in real time, and people have organic throughs that can't pass through a filter of research and fact checking. And people will often say things they would have phrased a lot differently or more precisely if they had more time to formulate the thought. I do a lot of movie podcasts. They aren't exactly high level critical reactions, but it is very easy to get basic things wrong or slightly off when you are recording hours at a time and having a conversation about media.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's apparent that disclaimer have sparked a lot of thought and conversation. Despite the extremes and sometimes the heated exchanges, I think that's worthwhile.

My feeling on this is the conversation itself is good to have. It is healthy to have conversations so long as we aren't despising each other at the end of them over elf games and fantasy media. I do think the disclaimer itself is misguided. It isn't the end of the world to have one. I just don't believe they are the best idea in the world. They are also extremely broad reaching. I think it is better for people to read older books and come to their own conclusions about what moral failings they have, rather than WOTC make that determination in advance for the reader.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

For the record, saying you support something while "not calling for it to happen" is generally accepted to be a means of evading responsibility for calling for something while still calling for it. Usually it comes up with something that would be illegal (inciting violence) to call for, but I think the premise is the same even if the degree of bad is different. If you do it with something bad, it normalizes the bad thing by endorsing it and makes the world a more hospitable place for people who want to do it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

For the record, saying you support something while "not calling for it to happen" is generally accepted to be a means of evading responsibility for calling for something while still calling for it.

Citation needed.

 

[MGibster]

So, I guess where someone falls out on this issue is more, "Is it okay to keep selling stuff you know is culturally insensitive?" It's not like WotC doesn't know. They can't claim ignorance here. They know so well that they put a disclaimer on it. So, the argument could be made that this isn't enough and the right thing to do here would be to stop making money off of it.

That's a rabbit hole I'd be interested in seeing how far down we should go. People still enjoy Breakfast at Tiffany's despite Mickey Rooney's performance as Mr. Yunioshi. John Carter of Mars and Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs contain elements we'd consider insensitive today but people still purchase these books and enjoy them. These are works that have and continue to influence us. They're culturally relevant. So I guess the question is, for anyone who wants to argue that it isn't right to make any profit from these works, how much of our culture do they want to hide or otherwise make inaccessible to others because they contain elements we consider insensitive today?

 

[MGibster]

I think these kinds of videos and podcasts, especially long form ones, are basically conversations. So I don't think it is fair to hold them to the same degree of scrutiny as say an article or a scholarly book.

I'm not going to hold them to the same scrutiny as I would a scholarly work. At the same time, I'm going to hold them to the same standards I would hold anyone else who is presenting an argument. Maybe this is a generational thing, but I really hate the way they present their argument in real time rather than figuring things out first, putting their thoughts in order, and then presenting their conclusions. Plenty of people produce videos where they present their arguments in a clear concise and thoughtful manner.

But just in terms of podcasts, when you have people talking for extended periods of time like that, things come up that can't be vetted in real time, and people have organic throughs that can't pass through a filter of research and fact checking.

If they're going to have people on to talk about something then at least make sure those guests actually know what they're talking about. Again, maybe this is a generational thing.

 

[ryu289]

That's a rabbit hole I'd be interested in seeing how far down we should go. People still enjoy Breakfast at Tiffany's despite Mickey Rooney's performance as Mr. Yunioshi. John Carter of Mars and Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs contain elements we'd consider insensitive today but people still purchase these books and enjoy them. These are works that have and continue to influence us. They're culturally relevant. So I guess the question is, for anyone who wants to argue that it isn't right to make any profit from these works, how much of our culture do they want to hide or otherwise make inaccessible to others because they contain elements we consider insensitive today?

To be fair, those books are far more progressive than we give them credit for: Tarzan / YMMV - TV Tropes

It wouldn't be that hard to turn down the steryotypes/add nuance and keep them more or less in their Pulp Action roots, which are usually universal to begin with

 

[MGibster]

To be fair, those books are far more progressive than we give them credit for: Tarzan / YMMV - TV Tropes

It wouldn't be that hard to turn down the steryotypes/add nuance and keep them more or less in their Pulp Action roots, which are usually universal to begin with

It doesn't matter if they're more progressive than we give them credit for nor does it matter that we can tone down the stereotypes or add nuance. The point is that these books and movies exist in their original form and publishers still profit from their sales. And if it's wrong for OA to be sold on the grounds that it's culturally insensitive then we really need to examine the other media we continue to enjoy despite any problematic elements.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not going to hold them to the same scrutiny as I would a scholarly work. At the same time, I'm going to hold them to the same standards I would hold anyone else who is presenting an argument. Maybe this is a generational thing, but I really hate the way they present their argument in real time rather than figuring things out first, putting their thoughts in order, and then presenting their conclusions. Plenty of people produce videos where they present their arguments in a clear concise and thoughtful manner.


If they're going to have people on to talk about something then at least make sure those guests actually know what they're talking about. Again, maybe this is a generational thing.

I don't know if it is generational or not (I grew up in the 80s if that helps us gauge our respective age difference). But I just draw a distinction between formats that are conversational (which this one clearly was) and ones that are presenting information. This struck me as a thinking out loud approach, and I think the audience was meant to understand that. Now I disagreed with a number of their conclusions (a lot of what they argued seemed based in Edward Said's ideas and I am not personally very persuaded by the book Orientalism), but I don't think there is anything wrong with the format they chose, and the way in which they brought up different ideas. Again I think the bigger issue on this stuff is on the audience end: people need to understand when they watch or listen to conversational shows, that that is what they are. They aren't academic lectures, books, or even blog posts. These are spontaneous conversations and while people can bring notes to them and organize their thoughts as best they can, the ideas are often emerging live and that is going to be a little messier than if you are giving a clear presentation of an idea. If this were done as a presentation I would agree with you.

At the same time, I don't think it is fair in these discussions to point to an hours long podcast when people disagree with you about something and say "here is my evidence". Or to say they are definitive, when the ideas were themselves often taking shape over the course of the program. Because those podcasts are so long, people do seem to be coming away from them with different takes. And so I think here, we all should be trying to lay out our positions and arguments as clearly as we can.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Citation needed.

For what? the concept of Plausible Deniability?

Here's an Academic presentation illustrating how it works I guess.

Here's TV Tropes, which should be a good metric for its use in a lay context, and how pervasive the concept of it is.

Its become very popular in politics, often by politicians who want to call for something without having to be responsible for having said it.

You also have the concept of Stochastic Language e.g. "Stochastic Terrorism" where the goal is to have speech that outlines that something should be done, or that it would be a good thing, without asking someone directly to do it, so that the person can't be held responsible when someone does it. In the case of Stochastic Terrorism its violence, but in this context, it would be normalizing pressure restricting speech both to have a chilling effect on target forms of speech, and to have what I suppose would be a "warming effect" on the actions the person deploying it would like to see happen.