D&D General PETITION: Acknowledge Hasbro's hurtful content (Black orcs, Asian yellow orcs, Native American red orcs)—through an Amendatory Bundle [+ thread]

[ReshiIRE]

Asking a publisher to editorialise their work by placing an editorial statement on it works against this basic democratic freedom.

Asking.

Not forcing. Not even pushing for laws against the content. Not influencing unduly or in a deceptive manner. Not privately pushing people.

Merely asking the publisher for this is against democratic freedom?

No, I'm fairly sure acting like this and going in this extreme is significantly more dangerous to democratic freedoms, if one asking another to change their work - or in this case, provide commentary on and change their actions - is thought to be against democracy. Because in some way, that's acting like criticism of a work is dangerous to democracy. And where will the lines on that thought end?

You want to talk about a spacious argument? About suffocating freedom of expression? Acting like this is significantly more likely to do so, because it's giving people permission to whine and to naughty word on and to do worse against people criticising something they like, cause it's against 'freedom'.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

View attachment 276589

Asking.

Not forcing. Not even pushing for laws against the content. Not influencing unduly or in a deceptive manner. Not privately pushing people.

Merely asking the publisher for this is against democratic freedom?

No, I'm fairly sure acting like this and going in this extreme is significantly more dangerous to democratic freedoms, if one asking another to change their work - or in this case, provide commentary on and change their actions - is thought to be against democracy. Because in some way, that's acting like criticism of a work is dangerous to democracy. And where will the lines on that thought end?

You want to talk about a spacious argument? About suffocating freedom of expression? Acting like this is significantly more likely to do so, because it's giving people permission to whine and to naughty word on and to do worse against people criticising something they like, cause it's against 'freedom'.

You can ask, sure. But if that consent is given (which it won't be, but if it is...), that's a problem. Freedom of thought and expression has just been compromised. By that consent, we are now forced to look at a published work through the lens of a single individual.

So my point is: if one asks, and the only positive outcome to the asker results in/sets a precedent for a problematic situation for the well-being of society as a whole, what is the point in asking?

Hopefully you can see the difference between criticism of a work and what the OP is asking for? Criticism is welcome and in fact should be the norm. It is part of what makes a society democratic. The sort of editorialising that is being proposed, thought, ventures into Orwellian territory.

 

[ReshiIRE]

So freedom of expression can be compromised by someone consenting to change something they wrote if another asks about it?

So in effect - you can't ever take back something you wrote or change it once published, ever, because you're venturing into Orwellian territory - by doing something of your own choice?

That kinda takes away your own freedom to say what you want if you can't take back what you said, no?

We can't update something if we change our mind on our own, or someone or a group of people tell us "hey, this is naughty word", and we agree? We can't include an editorial on our work later?

What if we make a serious factual error and want to correct it, and we don't want our old version to go around anymore and spread misinformation? Are you saying that if I did that, I'd be Orwellian? Is a newspaper updating an online article with a note at the end saying they made an error - or later releasing a correction in a physical article - Orwellian?

Nobody who's censored in 1984 consented to changing their works or views. Nobody who's coerced and controlled in 1984 is convinced through criticism or exchange of ideas to change their mind or what they're writing.

You are saying that if you write or publish something once - at one time - you deciding to revoke that work for any reason is comparable to engaging in dystopian, dangerous thought. No matter you reason for doing that, at all.

Is that not extremely authoritarian? Is that not compelled speech - the inability to take back what you said? Is that really an argument about freedom, if I don't have the freedom to volunterily, with my consent, change and rerelease a work I've produced?

Do authors have rights at all, or do they lose control of everything once they publish something? Does everyone have the right to what they wrote forever, no questions asked, no matter what? Where does my right to speech end?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

So freedom of expression can be compromised by someone consenting to change something they wrote if another asks about it?

So in effect - you can't ever take back something you wrote or change it once published, ever, because you're venturing into Orwellian territory - by doing something of your own choice?

I haven't read the rest of this, but wow, slow down. What choice are you referring to? The only choice being offered is the one by the petitioner. It is not a choice offered by society at large. That, on it's own, makes this an Orwellian situation.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I haven't read the rest of this, but wow, slow down. What choice are you referring to? The only choice being offered is the one by the petitioner. It is not a choice offered by society at large. That, on it's own, makes this an Orwellian situation.

What are you talking about? There is no Orwellian situation here. It's a petition. Please, this conversation is difficult enough without the extreme hyperbole.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

What are you talking about? There is no Orwellian situation here. It's a petition. Please, this conversation is difficult enough without the extreme hyperbole.

It's also difficult without odd obfuscations like this. I was responding to another user's quote.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

What are you talking about? There is no Orwellian situation here. It's a petition. Please, this conversation is difficult enough without the extreme hyperbole.

The nature of the petition is ugly is what I'm saying. I realise now that this is the + thread, but I am getting responses here, so hopefully the mods will be forgiving of that.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The nature of the petition is ugly is what I'm saying. I realise now that this is the + thread, but I am getting responses here, so hopefully the mods will be forgiving of that.

I'm sorry, what? You've called it Orwellian thought-policing. That's utterly ridiculous hyperbole to the extreme.

Someone made a petition to put a disclaimer in front of something. We have people comparing this to authoritarian moves on free speech and limiting thoughts.

What this is is detached from reality. I'm utterly amazed at the surreal discourse this entire thread has spawned.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I'm sorry, what? You've called it Orwellian thought-policing. That's utterly ridiculous hyperbole to the extreme.

Someone made a petition to put a disclaimer in front of something. We have people comparing this to authoritarian moves on free speech and limiting thoughts.

What this is is detached from reality. I'm utterly amazed at the surreal discourse this entire thread has spawned.

You're being insulting. I will not hold that against you. Truly. Also, I'm not going to respond to that bait. I think this view you're suggesting is the one detached from reality. I'm guessing by the fact that there are still only 14 signatories on this petition (including the guy who created the partition), your opinion might be in the minority. Do with that what you will.

If you can't see how an abstract thought like 'constricting access to information is a problem for society' is an issue, I can't help you.

 

[Justice and Rule]

You're being insulting. I will not hold that against you. Truly. Also, I'm not going to respond to that bait. I think this view you're suggesting is the one detached from reality.

Not really? We put disclaimers on things all the time. Wizards already did it. They are ever-present in society to inform people of a variety of things. The hyperbole you present is wild. The idea that this is somehow Orwellian is nonsensical from anyone who has actually read Orwell.

I'm guessing by the fact that there are still only 14 signatories on this petition (including the guy who created the partition), your opinion might be in the minority. Do with that what you will.

I don't think everyone who doesn't sign thinks that this is somehow Orwellian thought-crime, either.

If you can't see how an abstract thought like 'constricting access to information is a problem for society', I can't help you.

No one is, though. That's the whole point: people put disclaimers on things all the time. They don't control people, they inform people. They are everypresent throughout our society, as warnings, explanations, classifications, etc...

Those don't constrict access. Those inform. You can regard or disregard them. There's no forced choice. You're making up some sort of authoritarian system that does not exist.