Recent Dragon Mag Article Pulled?

[RHGreen]

I know a gay Native American and all he wants is for DnD to stop sucking.

WTF?! My mind is an explosion of weird images.

 

[Agamon]

"I was just kidding" is second only to "Now I'm not racist, but..."

Heh, reminds me of Jim Rome's rant, "If someone says 'No offense, but...' they mean offense, every time."

And don't forget, when someone says "with all due respect", they really mean "kiss my ass". (lol, best line in ME)

 

[pawsplay]

What the poo-poo-pa-doo??? Ya know, I just checked the calendar and it's not April 1st, so I guess this must be real. Yikes.

At least we got one good thing out of this: a striking and easily understood example of the intimate connection between casual, polite -isms and the nastier kind, as both arise from a viewpoint lacking in sufficient empathy and respect. I hope anyone who reads this, and at some future time is tempted to say, "Well, women/girls like X..." pauses a moment and considers whether they are contributing to a culture where it's acceptable to joke about raping and battering women.

 

[the Jester]

I hope anyone who reads this, and at some future time is tempted to say, "Well, women/girls like X..." pauses a moment and considers whether they are contributing to a culture where it's acceptable to joke about raping and battering women.

IMHO it is absolutely acceptable to joke about anything horrible, it's just not acceptable to do horrible things.

 

[AeroDm]

IMHO it is absolutely acceptable to joke about anything horrible, it's just not acceptable to do horrible things.

I generally agree with the following caveat: It is the joker's duty to know his or her audience. Sometimes somethings in some scenarios just aren't funny and are better left alone.

 

[pawsplay]

IMHO it is absolutely acceptable to joke about anything horrible, it's just not acceptable to do horrible things.

So where do you stand on the dehumanizing destruction of self-esteem in little girls? Absolutely acceptable, or not acceptable?

We are not arguing about the abstract right to say things which might be offensive; I am a strong proponent of free speech. I am specifically saying this guy makes the world a worse place, and if you think his behavior can be condoned, you are, too. I'm not threatening to throw him in jail. I'm just saying very critical things about him on the Internet. Which I hope is absolutely acceptable.

 

[pawsplay]

I generally agree with the following caveat: It is the joker's duty to know his or her audience. Sometimes somethings in some scenarios just aren't funny and are better left alone.

Something has occured in the last couple of posts that is stretching the terms of the debate. What I was saying was that tolerated behavior can lead to that behavior actually being accepted and justified. I wasn't using "acceptable" as a euphemism for moral or legal.

 

[Kzach]

What I find sad about this article is that it showcases just how early girls and boys are conditioned into certain roles just to suit society's expectations of them.

 

[pawsplay]

What I find sad about this article is that it showcases just how early girls and boys are conditioned into certain roles just to suit society's expectations of them.

From before birth, really. Even in utero, people ascribe different characteristics to jiggling fetuses based on their beliefs as to the future child's gender. Presumably, even a blastosphere can be a princess, or Daddy's Little Man.

 

[AeroDm]

Something has occured in the last couple of posts that is stretching the terms of the debate. What I was saying was that tolerated behavior can lead to that behavior actually being accepted and justified. I wasn't using "acceptable" as a euphemism for moral or legal.

It might be stretching the terms of the debate but it might also just be a different perspective. I'm honestly not sure. I'll try and expand my thoughts and see if we don't have more shared ground than we thought.

What I am saying is that within specific groups of people dialogue and debate progress until certain things are taken for granted. We sometimes call this intellectual inbreeding. To outsiders, what the group takes for granted can be seen as shocking and distasteful but to them it is just mild hyperbole to demonstrate the extent to which they agree with some point. I am distant enough from his view points that I find his words distasteful, but I'm not ready to declare that he "makes the world a worse place." Regardless, when he elected to make his words public, it was on him to understand the scope of that publicity.

Generically, I hold a person accountable for his words, but I don't necessarily discount it against his expertise. I find Watson's (of Watson and Crick) comments about race distasteful, but I'd still defer to him about science. In this instance, I think the "words" are linked enough to the "expertise" that it is appropriate to call it into question and appropriate for WotC to pull the article, if for no other reason than that the controversy is not worth the insights the article provided.