Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[Bill Zebub]

Why wouldn't I? The comparison clearly shows that whites from high poverty areas in the country experience more poverty than blacks from low poverty areas. That seems a pretty important point if we are going to talk white privilege.

This reminds me of the time I got stopped in what I thought was a drunk driving roadblock, but was actually a seatbelt check roadblock, and I wasn't wearing my seatbelt. Since he asked why I wasn't wearing it, I explained that I lived about 150 yards away, and I was about to get on the highway on-ramp in another 50 yards, and that I habitually buckle up while going down the ramp. He said, "90% of all accidents happen within a mile of the home." I responded, "Ok, but what overall percentage of driving happens within a mile of the home?" He looked puzzled, so I said, "The first statistic is not relevant without the second statistic."

Actually, that anecdote is relevant to this conversation in two ways. One, because this is what happens when we don't teach statistics in schools. Two, after I basically insulted the cop's intelligence, he gave me a ticket and let me go.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You know . . . I think I'm done with this thread. As seems to be the case each time these types of discussions come up, a handful of folks go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and lessen the harm of the sexist and racist elements of D&D's development, history, and current form.

Yup, I'm getting there myself.

If the goal of all this sophistry is to avoid having to address problems, then we're just feeding it by trying to engage.

 

[Justice and Rule]

True, but I also don't think that's a unique situation. Most people that put themselves out there are going to have their detractors (putting it very mildly) looking for an opportunity, and of many of those who do, it's often going to be because of who they are rather than what they do. The same kind of people who drove Near (the author of the Higan emulator) to suicide will gladly latch onto other online mobs who have found a mutually "acceptable" target even if it's for completely opposite reasons. It's why I'm generally averse to joining my voice to any discussion that has a person as its target, even if the ostensible reason behind it is benign or in line with my own opinions. Too many opportunities for it to turn ugly.

Which, admittedly, isn't really the thing going on with this specific topic, so I guess treat that like the tangent it is.

Sure, but I think when we talk about RPGs and this sort of thing, we need to be more specific.

With Lindsey she had a big following, was in the middle of several messy situations between former colleagues and was hated by the right and certain parts of the left. When her whole moment happened, it was not about the moment itself but more that so many people were just waiting to pounce. I'm not sure that's really applicable to anything that's been discussed on this board. Similarly with Near, they were driven to suicide by concerted and constant online harassment... which, again, I don't think is comparable here (nor do I really count as cancelling here). But you basically admit that, so good on you.

I think my problem is that we should be pretty specific when we talk about "cancelling" and harassment in this regard. Like, I remember some people not liking the recent Critical Role opening and I'll say that I didn't see much harassment of Critical Role, but I did see a whole bunch of it happening to the people who brought it up. It's just way more common in my experience to see fans instinctively attack criticism (especially from a social justice bent) than creators.

 

[FrogReaver]

This reminds me of the time I got stopped in what I thought was a drunk driving roadblock, but was actually a seatbelt check roadblock, and I wasn't wearing my seatbelt. Since he asked why I wasn't wearing it, I explained that I lived about 150 yards away, and I was about to get on the highway on-ramp in another 50 yards, and that I habitually buckle up while going down the ramp. He said, "90% of all accidents happen within a mile of the home." I responded, "Ok, but what overall percentage of driving happens within a mile of the home?" He looked puzzled, so I said, "The first statistic is not relevant without the second statistic."

Actually, that anecdote is relevant to this conversation in two ways. One, because this is what happens when we don't teach statistics in schools. Two, after I basically insulted the cop's intelligence, he gave me a ticket and let me go.

Now that you are done implying that my statistics are somehow wrong - maybe you should think about stating where they are wrong?

 

[FrogReaver]

Yup, I'm getting there myself.

If the goal of all this sophistry is to avoid having to address problems, then we're just feeding it by trying to engage.

Please stop implying bad faith.

 

[MGibster]

If the goal of all this sophistry is to avoid having to address problems, then we're just feeding it by trying to engage.

Here's the thing, there's near universal agreement in this thread that OA is problematic. The majority of this thread's participants would not want a new version of OA published that did not address the issues from 1985. If all you want to do is make sure the same mistakes aren't repeated, well, great, I think almost everyone here is onboard with that starting with the name of the product itself.

 

[MGibster]

Actually, that anecdote is relevant to this conversation in two ways. One, because this is what happens when we don't teach statistics in schools. Two, after I basically insulted the cop's intelligence, he gave me a ticket and let me go.

As a married man, I learned that this is called winning the argument but losing the fight.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Now that you are done implying that my statistics are somehow wrong - maybe you should think about stating where they are wrong?

Uh, they never implied that your statistics are wrong. They're just saying what I and others said: that your use of them is misleading because they obscure actual comparable things. That's the point of him saying "The first isn't relevant without the second".

Here's the thing, there's near universal agreement in this thread that OA is problematic. The majority of this thread's participants would not want a new version of OA published that did not address the issues from 1985. If all you want to do is make sure the same mistakes aren't repeated, well, great, I think almost everyone here is onboard with that starting with the name of the product itself.

While I would like your premise to be true, there are people within the last two pages who have literally disputed it, which is why we're talking about sophistry.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Now that you are done implying that my statistics are somehow wrong - maybe you should think about stating where they are wrong?

Not wrong in the sense that your one number is wrong (I don't know what the number is, but I have no reason to not believe you.)

Wrong in the sense that it's not saying anything relevant to this discussion. I almost wrote, "not what you think it's saying" but realized you may not be trying to say what I think you're trying to say. But even if you're trying to say something else, your single datum has no useful relevance. It is totally not surprising that if you take increasingly small samples of demographic data eventually you will find anomalous clusters.

In fact, this is exactly what led to the "powerlines cause cancer" scare of the....70's? If you look long enough, you'll find clusters of cancer cases that happen to be near high tension power lines. You'll also find clusters of cancer cases near fishing ponds. Or near gaming stores! Or near just about anything else you care to search for.

It doesn't mean anything.

 

[MGibster]

While I would like your premise to be true, there are people within the last two page who have literally disputed it, which is why we're talking about sophistry.

Near universal doesn't mean universal. Look, I'm an apologist for OA because I think it has a place in the history of the game and there's value in keeping it available for those who are interested in buying it, but even I wouldn't want to see WotC remake it without addressing the many valid criticisms that have been brought up in this and previous threads.