D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Umbran]

Guess what? The existence of toxicity on both sides does NOT mean that both sides were equally toxic.

Mod Note:
Because you are an impartial, objective, and universal observer?

This is more than sufficient re-litigation of the Edition Wars. Please, go write a book or series of blog posts about it or something, if you must - it isn't a constructive discussion topic for this site, and really isn't what this thread is about.

 

[Mordhau]

Deleted.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

What you have actually said is, "All that matters is the power to change things, and you should not use yours."

Oh I'm definitely going to need you to quote me rather than read into things, because my stance directly contradicts that assertion. Like it's actually the literal opposite.

My stance is exactly that you should use your power when you can, and be serene when you can't.

 

[CleverNickName]

This is such a weird angle to approach "GAZ10 The Orcs of Thar" from.

The purpose of a gate is to allow access to both sides of a barrier, such as a wall or fence. And a gatekeeper is someone who guards the gate and decides who gets to use it.

In this thread, the wall is a metaphor for the boundaries that consumers have, to separate and contain harmful/offensive content. I get that. And I understand that there are going to be gates in those boundaries...our metaphor for a means of access that allow mature, like-minded consumers to use harmful/offensive content (I'm sure they have their reasons). But gatekeepers? People deciding who is allowed to access harmful/offensive content and who isn't? "I want to keep all this offensive stuff all to myself!" I don't think so.

We've seen arguments about whether or not the barrier should be there, and arguments over whether or not there should be gates in those barriers. But I don't understand the accusations of gateKEEPING... that's not what's happening here.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

This is such a weird angle to approach "GAZ10 The Orcs of Thar" from.

The purpose of a gate is to allow access to both sides of a barrier, such as a wall or fence. And a gatekeeper is someone who guards the gate and decides who gets to use it.

In this thread, the wall is a metaphor for the boundaries that consumers have, to separate and contain harmful/offensive content. I get that. And I understand that there are going to be gates in those boundaries...our metaphor for a means of access that allow mature, like-minded consumers to use harmful/offensive content (I'm sure they have their reasons). But gatekeepers? People deciding who is allowed to access harmful/offensive content and who isn't? I don't think so.

We've seen arguments about whether or not the barrier should be there, and arguments ovwr whether or not there should be gates. But I don't understand the accusations of gateKEEPING... that's not what's happening here.

Very meta.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

….every thread of a sufficient length becomes an edition war. Somehow.

 

[Aldarc]

Mod Note:
Because you are an impartial, objective, and universal observer?

This is more than sufficient re-litigation of the Edition Wars. Please, go write a book or series of blog posts about it or something, if you must - it isn't a constructive discussion topic for this site, and really isn't what this thread is about.

My apologies. My intention was not to establish myself as "impartial, objective, and universal observer" at all, but, rather, to disrupt the false equivalency of how narrative conflicts are often depicted. I am more than willing to drop my part in the Edition Wars discourse that has transpired in this thread.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There are many people who seem more concerned about rolling back what constitutes racism, sexism, or other social issues than combating them when they occur in society. When does racism actually constitute racism? Leave it to some people to define it and the answer in practice amounts to "never." And nothing is ever actually done about it. But thankfully people subjected to racism can find comfort in the people who want you to know that they think that racism is terrible.

Exactly, and it is quite telling that opinions such as the one you responded to are ALWAYS held by people who are not themselves the focus of the prejudice. To tie it back to the thread, finally, its always some prestige group fella that is telling us its no big deal that Orcs just happen to code for traits of disadvantaged minorities and associate those traits with other negative ones. Why does the opinion of us white guys even count there? The way I see it, the way the world NEEDS to work is that each group gets to control the public perception of its own image, and the response to "that isn't an acceptable way for you to view this" should be, overwhelmingly, "OK, help me out here, lets come up with a way to look at it that DOES work." Honestly, I think that's what motivates people who want to see some change. It isn't about trying to police someone else's thoughts, it is about working together to bring IS and NEEDS TO BE to the same place.

 

[CleverNickName]

….every thread of a sufficient length becomes an edition war. Somehow.

EDIT: Or it morphs into a thread about pizza.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

"My feelings are hurt!
And you know what? That reminds me of another time that my feelings were hurt! The year was 2008..."

thatsaboldmovecotton.gif