D&D 5E Toxicity in the Fandom

[Umbran]

I wondering now, does the definition of toxic solely have to do with being anti-diversity and inclusion? That what's it seems to come down to.

Well, note that in order to have "a community" you have to have some notion about who is in it, and who isn't.

If you are a major dillweed about who is, and isn't, in the group, that's probably toxic. You can be a dillweed about gender, or whether someone crochets instead of knitting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This reminds me of a conversation I had the other day with a friend. I told him this new cat is laying down some great music tracks. "It's like Bruce Springsteen; only I want to listen to it!" I realized that joke works well with my friend because he knows me. It probably would translate poorly online.

Yeah, it can be very hard to tell someone who's just making a slightly edgy joke from someone who's doing a deliberate dig targeted at the readers online.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, note that in order to have "a community" you have to have some notion about who is in it, and who isn't.

If you are a major dillweed about who is, and isn't, in the group, that's probably toxic. You can be a dillweed about gender, or whether someone crochets instead of knitting.

Its the biggest reason "gatekeeping" is a strong theme in a lot of arguments (which doesn't mean its not sometimes overused, but people who don't think its a genuine problem either haven't looked around much, or just have decided that the gatekeeping at hand is okay.)

 

[mythago]

I agree with you about disparaging others, but I feel the majority of the times that someone is claiming that the Star Trek fan is bent out of shape over diversity and inclusion, that is just another case of disparaging others.

I'm not really a Star Trek fan so I don't even know what is going on in that community, but in the case of the sequel trilogy the majority of fans I knew weren't criticizing diversity and inclusion per se but tokenism. They were quick to point out (I think rightly) that it would be stupid to claim that the same people who loved Leia, Lando, Mace Windu and Padme as characters were racist if they didn't like Rey and Finn as characters. Among their complaints is that it seemed that characters like Finn were created solely to check a racial diversity check box with no clear idea by the writers what role that character was supposed to play in the story, and with the apparent understanding that "black man" was a personality and sufficient characterization that no further character building was needed. These critics to the extent that they cared about race at all tended to not at all be upset that there was a black actor in Star Wars but that a black actor was asked to play such a flimsy poorly written part as "Finn" solely because he was black and with no other apparent consideration. And they were equally angry to be told that if they thought Finn's motives weren't clearly explained, Finn's actions weren't logical, Finn's characterization made him seem to be stupid and unlikeable, and Finn was not contributing in any other way than the JarJar comic relief (speaking of embarrassing roles for a black man) that they were bad racist fans and should just shut up.

That's a lot of impassioned argument about a particular argument in a community for "I don't even know what is going on in that community". Perhaps I'm being unfair because I'm not a Star Trek fan either, yet it's a bit hard to avoid all the noise?

The idea of Star Trek fans rightfully being upset about tokens and forced diversity is hilarious since the original Star Trek was all about that. Gene Roddenberry didn't just randomly happen to cast POC actors in those roles, he was making a deliberate and intentional point about the future having people of all races and creeds, etc.* The episodes about racism were about as subtle as a fireball. To our modern eyes, it can be embarassingly clumsy. Yet there is a segment of the Star Trek fandom that bemoans the imaginary good old days when Star Trek wasn't about diversity, man, it was just cool phasers and adventures on other planets and fights with aliens, I kid you not.

As for the "I can't be racist, I like this one black character in another movie!" I know we're all intelligent people and are beyond falling for that sort of tokenism.

Regarding toxicity, as others have said at length, it's primarily about the how. We can all agree that death threats and telling people they should be assaulted or die are toxic, regardless of the motivation for doing so?

*I'm assuming somebody has done a scholarly article about drawing a line back to the old WWII comics where the sergeant had a team with a painfully stereotyped but good-hearted mix of ethnicities out there giving the Nazis what for.

 

[James Gasik]

Yes, people griping about Star Trek being "too woke" now do amuse me. "Hey, do you remember that classic Trek episode about the race of people who were white on one side of their bodies, and black the other, and the people who were white on the right side of their bodies hated the people who were white on the left side? What do you think that was all about?"

 

[payn]

This stuff is cyclical, yet always seems to feel like something new to folks. Just recently, comedian Bill Marh was crying about how the last James Bond movie was neutered. That Bond was reduced to holding his girlfriend's purse. Never mind the context, that this was a sequential movie, in which, the predecessors had Bond banging lots 'o chicks. Or how this actually has precedent in the franchise from the 80's during the aids epidemic. The Dalton era had him as a one lady Bond in those films. Being too promiscuous seemed a bit tone deaf at the time, but didnt stop folks from complaining. Funny how they completely forget that era and assume this is just a nowadays thing? Through history, misery always loves company, and any excuse for a flare up seems to find a welcome home among complainers.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, people griping about Star Trek being "too woke" now do amuse me. "Hey, do you remember that classic Trek episode about the race of people who were white on one side of their bodies, and black the other, and the people who were white on the right side of their bodies hated the people who were white on the left side? What do you think that was all about?"

I thought it was a metaphor for those yummy cookies?

No. Wait. A simile!

 

[James Gasik]

I thought it was a metaphor for those yummy cookies?

No. Wait. A simile!

Of course, everyone knows Captain Kirk has a love of Oreos. Why do you think he starts getting a little pudgy by mid-season?

 

[Ancalagon]

The worst I've faced is a Snyder cut fan decided to research me, threaten my job (finding out where I worked) and my wife (by name) because I didn't like the movie.
At least on forums I have some anonymity. I don't use it to be nasty to people, even if I am critical of things in the hobby.
Fandoms are toxic, for sure.

That's terrible. I mean, I enjoyed the cut, but I can certainly see how someone wouldn't like it... and even if I didn't see how someone could not like it, the most you "deserve" is "erm, you're wrong, sorry", not freaking threats :O :O :O

 

[Ancalagon]

I do believe the anonymity of online interactions is fertile ground for ugly behavior. One of the obvious reasons is that we're largely free from the social consequences of our bad behavior. But I think another reason is that it's easy to forget that we're typing to other human beings. We can't hear the inflection of voices, observe body language, or get all the other social cues we do from face-to-face discussion.

tone is so hard to do in writing - either as the writer or as a reader. there was this guy who made a lot of what was, to me, kinda snarky comments. But when I met him in real life and heard his voice, and his tone, I realized that I had been missreading his posts. He wasn't being mean he was being silly.