What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Maxperson]

Tu quoque?

That latin for New Coke? Horrible stuff!

But seriously, no it wasn't. I don't believe that any of those things are wrong to include, so I'm not arguing that two wrongs make a right.

If the concern is that removal of slavery means a removal of "all bad things", clearly, that's not happening, right? Other bad things abound.

As I note above, I don't think inclusion of any of these things is bad. That said, if someone is arguing that something bad should be removed, I feel like they should at least be consistent and want all bad things to be removed. If they don't, then the title of Chris Rock's new special comes to mind.

 

[Umbran]

Not one of those we invited said, "Sure I'll give it a shot." and then backed out upon seeing the pictures. Or even mentioned them.

You just positioned that you want data from others as support.

Then you offer personal anecdote as support?

That seems like an uneven burden of proof.

 

[Umbran]

... if someone is arguing that something bad should be removed, I feel like they should at least be consistent and want all bad things to be removed.

But that is exactly tu quoque, the "Whataboutism" variant.

"You want to take out Thing A? What about B, C, D, and X?"

 

[Maxperson]

Now, this is a poorly positioned question. You know darned well we don't have that data, either way.

The real question is whether WotC had feedback enough to suggest this was a good move on their part. We, not being in WotC, don't know the answer to that either.

That's true, but given WotC's history of overreaction, even they might not know if they truly had enough to suggest that it was a good move on their part.

You just positioned that you want data from others as support.

Then you offer personal anecdote as support?

That seems like an uneven burden of proof.

I was asked what I think, not what I can prove, so I responded with what I thought and why. There's a big difference between what I did and others stating as a matter of fact that the increase in diversity was due to the removal of sexy female artwork

 

[Maxperson]

But that is exactly tu quoque, the "Whataboutism" variant.

"You want to take out Thing A? What about B, C, D, and X?"

Whataboutism is the argument that this bad thing is okay to keep around, because those other bad things over there aren't being removed. That isn't what I'm arguing. Hypocrisy/selective outrage is a major pet peeve of mine.

What I am doing is unselecting the outrage. It's okay with me if you are outraged at slavery being included in 5e and want to get it removed, but let's be outraged all the bad stuff in 5e, and whether we can get it all removed or not, let's at least include it all.

 

[Gradine]

Once, when my partner and I were much younger, she was having a pretty severe panic attack. It took quite a bit what was the source of the intrusive thoughts, but a lot of it was climate anxiety, and eventually she blurted out something about polar bears going extinct.

I told her "Sometimes, you have to let somebody else worry about the polar bears."

The problem with saying "Whataboutism" is simply an antidote to perceived "hypocrisy" is that it ignores the human condition, particularly the aspects of ourselves such as:
a) Limited knowledge
b) Limited energy
c) Limited perspective
d) Limited ability

I may advocate locally for local environmental efforts; this does not make me a hypocrite because I'm not also doing anything to save the polar bears, or the thousands of other environmental issues I could pursue. My particular passion for trans rights and recognition is not negated because I'm not as equally active in combatting biphobia, for example.

By all means, let's get a list together of all the things that we'd like to fix about the currently published D&D 5.0 oeuvre. There's a lot there. But then, that's not really the issue currently up for debate, is it? The topic currently at hand is slavery.

"Whataboutism" seeks to scuttle specific and direct conversations by insisting upon expanding their scope beyond the capability of the group to manage. Which is, more often than not, typically the point.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

.... The topic currently at hand is slavery.

It is?

I thought the topic was art?

checks back through thread

OH!

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is?

I thought the topic was art?

checks back through thread

OH!

The topic was supposed to be controversial content in RPGs in general.

 

[Gradine]

It is?

I thought the topic was art?

checks back through thread

OH!

Wait what thread am I in?

 

[Maxperson]

It is?

I thought the topic was art?

And not just any art, sexy art!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Wait what thread am I in?

I don't even know what country I'm in!

But we might as well cross the streams, right? Slavery and objectification!

Plus Star Wars. But that's never controversial here, right? We all agree on stuff about Star Wars!


.....oh.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And not just any art, sexy art!

View attachment 279560

How YOO doin'?

 

[Digdude]

I still find it funny that in an adult game of make believe, slavery=bad, yet going around murdering sentient and non-sentient beings=ok. Plus, the level of mental mas+$#bation people over the ins and outs of various social mores as they change over time is totally entertaining. Please continue another 100 pages please.

 

[Kariotis]

Sure. And I've gamed with a number of women going back to 1e who liked them. Not all of them, but more than a few. Can you show that more women disliked those pictures than liked them, and if so that it was a significantly greater number?

Seems we are back to the evidence thing. This time as "prove that more people dislike sexist art than like it". I can just repeat myself: the point is that everybody deserves to be heard and respected.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I can just repeat myself: the point is that everybody deserves to be heard and respected.

Counterpoint:

Bards, and the people who play them.

 

[Gradine]

I don't even know what country I'm in!

But we might as well cross the streams, right? Slavery and objectification!

Plus Star Wars. But that's never controversial here, right? We all agree on stuff about Star Wars!


.....oh.

 

[Maxperson]

Once, when my partner and I were much younger, she was having a pretty severe panic attack. It took quite a bit what was the source of the intrusive thoughts, but a lot of it was climate anxiety, and eventually she blurted out something about polar bears going extinct.

I told her "Sometimes, you have to let somebody else worry about the polar bears."

The problem with saying "Whataboutism" is simply an antidote to perceived "hypocrisy" is that it ignores the human condition, particularly the aspects of ourselves such as:
a) Limited knowledge
b) Limited energy
c) Limited perspective
d) Limited ability

I may advocate locally for local environmental efforts; this does not make me a hypocrite because I'm not also doing anything to save the polar bears, or the thousands of other environmental issues I could pursue. My particular passion for trans rights and recognition is not negated because I'm not as equally active in combatting biphobia, for example.

By all means, let's get a list together of all the things that we'd like to fix about the currently published D&D 5.0 oeuvre. There's a lot there. But then, that's not really the issue currently up for debate, is it? The topic currently at hand is slavery.

"Whataboutism" seeks to scuttle specific and direct conversations by insisting upon expanding their scope beyond the capability of the group to manage. Which is, more often than not, typically the point.

That's very well said.

My position is that slavery is not a problem in D&D. Nor are things like mass murder or genocide. And I say those things as a Jewish man whose great grandparents were from Eastern Europe.

People often like to tell me that I shouldn't talk about it if I(or my people) haven't experienced it, but while it may or may not be historically accurate that my people were slaves in Egypt, that slavery is still a major part of our cultural identity. One of our largest religious holidays Passover to this day has slavery as it's primary focus. And I there are very few who would dare suggest that we haven't endured a fairly recent major genocide at he hands of the Germans in WWII.

The inclusion of slavery and genocide has never offended me or made D&D feel unwelcoming to me. I know that these things are not specific to my people, nor are the instances in D&D meant to represent what happened to the Jews.

Even if I were to find those things upsetting, I would simply avoid them. Neither genocide nor slavery are major parts of the game, even if they remain central to Dark Sun. With 20(and I'm probably low) settings to pick from, I can avoid Dark Sun with it's slavery and genocide forever. Or I could alter it myself to remove those elements.

 

[Irlo]

That said, if someone is arguing that something bad should be removed, I feel like they should at least be consistent and want all bad things to be removed. If they don't, then the title of Chris Rock's new special comes to mind.

I think you’re missing something important.

People aren’t arguing that slavery be removed* because it’s bad. They’re arguing that it be removed because including it is unwelcoming to many players.

* I say removed as a short-hand. More properly, it’s about considering when, where, and how to depict slavery in gaming materials.

 

[Thourne]

Counterpoint:

Bards, and the people who play them.

sounds more like a pro agrument to me...of course Bards are my favorite so I might be biased

 

[Irlo]

I still find it funny that in an adult game of make believe, slavery=bad, yet going around murdering sentient and non-sentient beings=ok.

If that’s your take-away, you have missed the point.

Depictions of slavery in gaming materials are a problem not because slavery is bad. It’s a problem because the way it has been presented is unwelcoming to many players.