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

[doctorbadwolf]

That's my view too, but others have felt differently (that at least the product should be available somehow).

Very strange, to me. If I have a business, I owe (the general) you absolutely nothing in terms of what I decide to sell or not sell.

I've been wondering about how the views of people on:
(A) companies should always have to make all products perpetually available for purchase
and
(B) the right to be forgotten (like in web searches in the EU)
look in a Venn diagram.

That would be interesting to know. I can say, for my part, that I am a vociferous proponent of the right to be forgotten. I would also support a law that allowed the owner of an IP to pull their IP from all shelves, physical and digital, assuming the specifics were reasonable and small businesses could be compensated when this process would otherwise harm their business.

From where I sit, those aren't the only people who are outraged. I see a lot of outrage that others aren't properly or sufficiently offended.

As respectfully as I can, in text form, please provide proof of this claim. It strikes me as rather absurd, and I can guarantee you that I exist in no bubbles or echo chambers that would insulate me from such things, as I am very much surrounded by extreme views in daily life, and while my online life is curated to avoid interacting with the worst of the internet such as nazis, I too often delve into comment sections and the like where the most extreme statements on all sides of an argument dwell.

Sure, but there isn't one, true response to have to it - in terms of how bad it is, how we should view the author, what sort of measures to take about the product, etc.

What does this have to do with the discussion of whether the discussion in general relies on or inherently exhibits or indicates outrage, or whether those criticizing the work are outraged?

Well I agree on this.

That's one way to go, and I'm not opposed to something similar (though would probably excise the "scumbag" part). My personal preference would be putting more energy elsewhere, through better education and understanding of history. I don't feel like people need to be told how to respond to a given work, how to think about it.

What on Earth are you responding to, though? Please show me where anyone has told anyone else how to think.
What is actually happening is that we are discussing whether it would be appropriate to put a disclaimer in a work that it contains blatant bigotry. No one has suggested that such a disclaimer need include sermonizing about how the reader needs to feel about the work.

Yes, I agree with both. I think the discussion is worth having and trying to push everyone to consensus are both absurd.

Great. No one criticising Lovecraft or the various dnd products is trying to do the latter.

 

[Gradine]

Yes Really. I even wrote a whole post explaining why.

Not really, and you might have noticed they also wrote a post explaining why.

The "pitfalls" you claim exist only will cause trouble if one sets out to write a series of specific disclaimers then wash your hands of the whole thing. Which is what WotC did when they slapped on some boilerplate language and called it a day, and why they received the exact same backlash you prophesize.

I'm not talking about hiring people to write some blurbs for and move on; I'm talking about hiring someone who can be reactive and responsive to the feedback of others. Literally that's all it takes. Being responsive and respectful. Not once, but always, and in perpetuity.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You shouldn't be forced to stock it. But other people might want to have access to it. Not that one can really stop it these days anyway.

Okay. No one in this thread, literally not one single person (okay, I have some people on ignore so I could be wrong on the literally part), is positing that anything should be banned, burned, or "balefired", as one poster put it.

Yes Really. I even wrote a whole post explaining why.

Yes, you did indeed. I hope you aren't positing that having written a whole post arguing for your claim makes that claim true?

 

[Voadam]

Why? I genuinely cannot imagine why you would resent a company for deciding that they don't want to promote and specifically host access to things that don't fit their own ideals and those of the bulk of their customers and contributors. Why on Earth would you feel like they owe you the act of specifically hosting access to those materials for your benefit?

I never felt they owed me anything.

I felt they specifically removed access to all their older D&D PDFs in an attempt to drive me and as many gamers as they could to 4e.

This was a switch on their part from a mutually beneficial relationship with me as an ongoing customer (I was buying about $25 worth of old D&D PDFs per month at the time) to an adversarial one where they tried to specifically make things worse for me (and lots of other D&D gamers too) to get me (and other gamers) to shift to buy expensive hardcopy then-current 4e books.

That was why I resented WotC's actions in that period.

After they pulled access my gaming budget switched to all OGL and non-D&D PDF products for a long while.

 

[Gradine]

Literally that's all it takes. Being responsive and respectful. Not once, but always, and in perpetuity.

Hate to quote myself for truth, but I wanted to elaborate on this, because it really does answer a lot of the concerns people often voice. The "what's okay or not always changes!" crowd, the "you'll never do it right enough" brigade, the "where do we draw the line?!" coterie, etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

Rarely, actually. The question is, what's my play here? Popper's Paradox? Archbishop Desmond Tutu's thoughts on neutrality? Both?

So we agree then? Because I once again have no idea why you're making the arguments you are in your previous responses to me, because none of them are at all relevant to what I'm saying.

I'm saying one day I might want to read Ircs if That. I might actually own it I'm not sure as I bought some if the GAZ pdfs years ago.

At the time I bought those pdfs if anything happened I can redownload them.

Right now I'm having PC troubles think I need a new graphics card. And the keyboard is wonky.

I might "lose" access to something I paid for if my PC dies. One day I might want to read it, redownload it or complete the GAZ set of pdfs.

It's really expensive getting dead tree format let alone the postage on dead tree format.

So if it gets removed I can lose access to something I paid for. Potentially I can't remember what PDFs I own.

One day I plan in ditching my books. I want access to PDFs for old times sake.

 

[Mordhau]

Yes, you did indeed. I hope you aren't positing that having written a whole post arguing for your claim makes that claim true?

Just bemused that you would think it worth responding with contradiction without engagement.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I've never read any Lovecraft, but I would feel resentment if some kids decided that I would be racist if I read it, and so banned me from ever reading it.

Is "Orcs of Thar" so important to D&D that it carries the same level? Because of all I've seen, I really don't care if they take it off the market or not.

I deeply resented WotC when they pulled access to their catalog of D&D PDFs.

I had a large collection of hardcopy D&D books and a large collection of D&D PDFs at the time. More than I would ever read through. I also had plenty of options to spend my monthly gaming budget on OGL and Non-D&D stuff, but nevertheless I deeply resented WotC for their actions.

I resented that WotC was intentionally acting as much as they could to restrict my access to old D&D stuff and it was intentionally acting to similarly restrict access as much as they could for all gamers.

I wouldn't feel that way equally across all products. Like, I wouldn't really care that I can't get the terrible Castle Greyhawk module, and I care less so about this one after finding out about how bad it is. I don't understand resentment for limiting Orcs of Thar because I don't understand having those sorts of feelings for that expansion.

Would you find someone's apathy towards the availability of SotS acceptable?

That they just don't care either way? Not really. I mean, I don't really care much about a white guy's invention and retelling of black folk tales, so I don't find them particularly important, either.

Right, but some other things are also true: Just because I'm not offended doesn't mean I don't think it is problematic, and just because I think it is problematic, doesn't mean I think it needs to be de-platformed, or what have you.

And further, just because I'm offended, doesn't meant what I want should dictate what is done about it. Otherwise we'll get rid of...everything?

No, because that's just a reductio ad absurdum argument. The problematic nature of something is individualized to that thing and is extremely dependent on context, thus the idea of "Would we get rid of everything?" is nonsense. No one has argued just because someone is offended by something we should get rid of it without any sort of examination, hence why I talked about giving them the benefit of the doubt and not just buying it wholesale.

Or they could simply be doing things more consciously.

Why not put disclaimers? What is the problem with this? Why not recognize when things are bad and explain why they are so people understand why people thought these things were offensive? "Just moving forwards" misses that we can at least warn people about what we did in the past and why they were wrong. @Dungeonosophy 's outline for what they'd want to happen is utterly reasonable. What's the reason to not do these things?

I think there's a lot of "If you're not sufficiently offended and signaling as such, you're enabling the X-ists" (insert whatever you want for "X").

What do you mean by "signaling"? Are you saying we're just virtue signaling?

Because honestly, I haven't seen that at all in these threads and it feels like a whole lot of projection.

So one side is rational and the other emotional? Gotcha. What is taking offense but an emotional response?

Oh for the...

There is a difference between feeling emotions and being emotional. You are conflating the two. When you are offended, you are feeling an emotion. But you can also outline logically why you feel that way, and why it's doing that. When people talk about being offended by the Orcs of Thar, they can outline why these things make them feel that way.

BEING EMOTIONAL is colloquially used when you are not using logic. When someone feels like they are being attacked because they are taking alignment out of the game or are being called racist because of why people want it out of the game, that is them being emotional. It's not about how they are feeling, but how they are justifying those feelings. Someone feeling like they are getting called a racist because they like alignment despite people continually saying that is not the case is a good example.

The whole point is that the people who are offended can justify why they are in a way that those who feel like they are being called racists can't.

 

[Gradine]

I'm saying one day I might want to read Ircs if That. I might actually own it I'm not sure as I bought some if the GAZ pdfs years ago.

At the time I bought those pdfs if anything happened I can redownload them.

Right now I'm having PC troubles think I need a new graphics card. And the keyboard is wonky.

I might "lose" access to something I paid for if my PC dies. One day I might want to read it, redownload it or complete the GAZ set of pdfs.

It's really expensive getting dead tree format let alone the postage on dead tree format.

So if it gets removed I can lose access to something I paid for. Potentially I can't remember what PDFs I own.

One day I plan in ditching my books. I want access to PDFs for old times sake.

Now this, my friend, all relates to the thorny, prickly, kudzu that is the pros and cons of digital ownership, which I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, beyond to say that backups are never a bad idea.

An amusing anecdote actually; I recently found my own Kindle Fire, which I used long ago to play Knights of the Old Republic on. I had more recently deleted the file for space, and when I tried to download it again I found it had been delisted from the Kindle store, and it wouldn't let me download it.

Digital ownership can be a load of horse, is what I'm saying.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

That they just don't care either way? Not really. I mean, I don't really care much about a white guy's invention and retelling of black folk tales, so I don't find them particularly important, either.

What metric do you use to determine when apathy is allowed vs. when it's not allowed?

No, because that's just a reductio ad absurdum argument. The problematic nature of something is individualized to that thing and is extremely dependent on context, thus the idea of "Would we get rid of everything?" is nonsense. No one has argued just because someone is offended by something we should get rid of it without any sort of examination, hence why I talked about giving them the benefit of the doubt and not just buying it wholesale.

reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy, formal or otherwise. It's a kind of argument. So what do you mean by the qualifier "that's just"? Are you trying to say that all arguments via reductio ad absurdum are fallacious? invalid? What do you mean?