Yet slippery slopes are a real thing. Every heard that quote "First they came for...and I did nothing, then they came for..."?
Are you seriously comparing that to Orcs of Thar? Because slippery slopes live and die on their likelihood: Italy invading more places was likely because they were a warlike power. Do you really think we're in danger of banning everything here?
This is the problem with censorship of any kind, regardless of whether it is veiled as in the "private sphere." One thing easily leads to the next. If they censor people that you don't like, then that opens to censoring people you do like. Otherwise you end up in a death by small cuts situation or, to add yet another metaphor, the frog in slowly heating water.
Again, there's no reason to take it to an absurd level without proof that we're actually on that track. You're making alarmist slippery slope arguments with no evidence that we'll go that far. This is why the slippery slope is often used as an unofficial fallacy.
That's because I'm not arguing against it! You could give me the benefit of the doubt, and take me on my word: I'm not being coy, I just haven't made up my mind or come to what I think is the best solution.
If something is "mixed", that means there's something to both sides. If you have nothing to the other side, then... it's not mixed. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but I also have to take your words at face value.
But one thing that comes to mind is the problem with deciding what gets a disclaimer and what doesn't. There might be some works that are blatantly problematic, but the vast majority--at least among D&D products--are varying shades of gray, and subject to interpretation and how much one reads into it.
We judge everything individually within its individual contexts. This is just a continuation of the slippery slope: what do we judge and what not? How do we know we won't put it on everything?
Well, how about we try it first. There's no reason to fear action here, otherwise how will you know? You figure things out by trying them and seeing what works, not fretting and doing nothing.
I do think Orcs of Thar warrants a disclaimer - it is pretty blatant. But as you said, I think it is on a case-by-case basis, I just think it can get, um, rather slippery and depends a lot on the subjective determination of who is deciding and what their values are.
And I think that we come to that when we come to that. Orcs of Thar is Orcs of Thar and you can take it individually. You don't need to plan out every step in a journey, and there are certainly no pitfalls so bad that it is worse than no action at all.
I used a word and I probably should have used another because of association, but it is just a word that can be used in different contexts - not the phrase you used. Again, I merely meant expressing a certain degree of outrage.
Yeah, and I just don't see that here. I've been in plenty of these arguments on these boards, and I just don't see that. People don't get called racist, people don't get hit for not expressing the proper level of outrage. I see way more absurdities about "banning everything" from the other side.
That's not what I'm comparing. I'm comparing overall views, not teased out (cherry-picked) elements of those views.
I'm saying that the degree of emotional involvement and coloring of rationality by emotion isn't solely, or necessarily even mostly, weighted towards one side or the other. Or, at the least, that I've seen it on both "sides" (again, I dislike "sides" because it implies that there are only two sides, when one of my main arguments is that there are many gradations and variations of perspective).
What I hear you saying is that "your side" is rational and above emotion and the "other side" is not. That is obviously problematic.
I don't work in "overall views" because the specific is what I care about because that's where I can actually judge the values and justifications, hence why I've made a values judgement on the arguments of the other side. If you remove all context from that, yes, it looks worse than when I specific spell out why I think the other side is not really expressing themselves rationally.
That's why I'm being specific. I don't think we need to talk about upper-level stuff because I think that strips away all the useful information. That I think I'm rational is predicated on the specific facts of the situation and not some vague, general idea that I'm right and they are wrong. Fun fact: I don't think everyone that holds a different view to me is necessarily irrational or wrong. I judge them as they come. But in
this case, yes I find the other side to more emotional in their argument because I
specifically find them to be. That's not cherry-picking, that's justifying one's view to the specifics we are talking about.